Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • Understanding of human memory has been advanced by the investigation of memory errors, distortions, and illusions (Schacter, Norman, & Koutstaal, 1998; Roediger, 1996; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993)

  • The Poor spatial resolution of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) does not allow us to decisively link the present right frontal ERP effects to functional activations localized with PET or fMRI

  • It is useful to consider if processes related to effort, attempt, or success are consistent with our ERP results

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Understanding of human memory has been advanced by the investigation of memory errors, distortions, and illusions (Schacter, Norman, & Koutstaal, 1998; Roediger, 1996; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). False alarms to critical lures are sometimes associated with a high rate of`remember'' responses (Mather, Henkel, & Johnson, 1997; Norman & Schacter, 1997; Roediger & McDermott, 1995), suggesting that subjects are falsely recollecting illusory perceptual details about nonstudied words Such responses may reflect high-confidence judgments based on semantic familiarity (Curran et al, 1997; Hirshman & Master, 1997; Donaldson, 1996). These differences could correspond to either the parietal or late frontal ERP old/new effects related to source recollection in previous research

Behavioral Results
DISCUSSION
METHOD
Design and Procedure
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call