Abstract
Memory researchers have long been captivated by the nature of memory distortions and have made efforts to identify the neural correlates of true and false memories. However, the underlying mechanisms of avoiding false memories by correctly rejecting related lures remains underexplored. In this study, we employed a variant of the Deese/Roediger-McDermott paradigm to explore neural signatures of committing and avoiding false memories. ERP were obtained for True recognition, False recognition, Correct rejection of new items, and, more importantly, Correct rejection of related lures. With these ERP data, early-frontal, left-parietal, and late right-frontal old/new effects (associated with familiarity, recollection, and monitoring processes, respectively) were analysed. Results indicated that there were similar patterns for True and False recognition in all three old/new effects analysed in our study. Also, False recognition and Correct rejection of related lures activities seemed to share common underlying familiarity-based processes. The ERP similarities between False recognition and Correct rejection of related lures disappeared when recollection processes were examined because only False recognition presented a parietal old/new effect. This finding supported the view that actual false recollections underlie false memories, providing evidence consistent with previous behavioural research and with most ERP and neuroimaging studies. Later, with the onset of monitoring processes, False recognition and Correct rejection of related lures waveforms presented, again, clearly dissociated patterns. Specifically, False recognition and True recognition showed more positive going patterns than Correct rejection of related lures signal and Correct rejection of new items signature. Since False recognition and Correct rejection of related lures triggered familiarity-recognition processes, our results suggest that deciding which items are studied is based more on recollection processes, which are later supported by monitoring processes. Results are discussed in terms of Activation-Monitoring Framework and Fuzzy Trace-Theory, the most prominent explanatory theories of false memory raised with the Deese/Roediger-McDermott paradigm.
Highlights
Memory distortions have been widely investigated during the last several decades
A Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that correct responses to previously studied words were higher than false alarms to related lures, with a statistically significant difference of 25.99
True recognition was higher than false alarms to new items, showing a difference of 54.16
Summary
Memory distortions have been widely investigated during the last several decades (see [1,2] for reviews). Memory researchers have long been intrigued by the extent of similarities and differences between true and false memory at a behavioural [1,2], physiological [3], and neural level (see [4] for review) In this sense, efforts have been made to identify and describe the neural correlates of true and false recall and recognition using techniques such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) [5], Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], Near InfraRed Spectroscopy (NIRS) [20], or Event-Related Potentials (ERP) [21]. We used an improved variant of the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, a widely employed experimental procedure to induce false memories
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
