A hippocampal model of recognition memory
NIPS '97 Proceedings of the 1997 conference on Advances in neural information processing systems 10
When True Recognition Suppresses False Recognition: Evidence from Amnesic Patients
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
An Electrophysiological Investigation of Factors Facilitating Strategic Recollection
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Event-Related Potential Correlates of the Retrieval of Emotional and Nonemotional Context
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Retrieval Orientation and the Control of Recollection
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
The Influence of Criterion Shifts on Electrophysiological Correlates of Recognition Memory
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Event-related Potentials Reveal Age Differences in the Encoding and Recognition of Scenes
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Does this ring a bell? music-cued retrieval of semantic knowledge and metamemory judgments
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Hi-index | 0.00 |
People often falsely recognize nonstudied lures that are semantically similar to previously studied words. Behavioral research suggests that such false recognition is based on high semantic overlap between studied items and lures that yield a feeling of familiarity, whereas true recognition is more often associated with the recollection of details. Despite this behavioral evidence for differences between true and false recognition, research measuring brain activity (PET, fMRI, ERP) has not clearly differentiated corresponding differences in brain activity. A median split was used to separate subjects into Good and Poor performers based on their discrimination of studied targets from similar lures. Only Good performers showed late (1000–1500 msec), right frontal event-related brain potentials (ERPs) that were more positive for targets and lures compared with new items. The right frontal differences are interpreted as reflecting postretrieval evaluation processes that were more likely to be engaged by Good than Poor performers. Both Good and Poor performers showed a parietal ERP old/new effect (400–800 msec), but only Poor performers showed a parietal old/lure difference. These results are consistent with the view that the parietal and frontal ERP old/new effects reflect dissociable processes related to recollection.