Pattern separation during encoding and subsequent memory effect
Memory retrieval has been extensively studied in relation to the encoding processes that precede access to stored information. Event related potentials (ERP) research has compared brain potentials elicited during the study phase of successful and unsuccessful retrieval, finding greater activation fo...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid |
| Repositorio: | Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/715905 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10486/715905 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2024.107995 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | ERPs Memory Encoding Subsequent-Memory Effect Dm Pattern Separation Episodic Memory Psicología |
| Sumario: | Memory retrieval has been extensively studied in relation to the encoding processes that precede access to stored information. Event related potentials (ERP) research has compared brain potentials elicited during the study phase of successful and unsuccessful retrieval, finding greater activation for the subsequent retrieval information. In this work we were interested in exploring the neural markers associated to subsequent recognition when similar memories are subsequently encoded. We used a Subsequent Memory paradigm in which we manipulated the number of similar items within a category (2 or 6) that participants encoded. Manipulating the number of similar encoded items within a category allowed us to test whether encoding markers of subsequent recognition depend solely on memory trace strength or, on the contrary, successful recognition is influenced by subsequently presented similar memories, and consequently may not be reflected in higher activation in such cases. After a 20- minute period, participants performed a recognition task providing one of a three-option judgement: “old”, “similar” and “new”, which allowed us to test if the amplitude of ERP waveforms varied based on the similarity judgement of the unrecognized encoded item. We did not observe a significant parietal subsequent memory effect, however, old hits and similar false alarms were both significantly different from similar correct rejections and old false alarms in ERP retrieval. These findings suggest that differences in brain responses between conditions are specifically related to the retrieval process and not the encoding process, indicating potential differential effects on memory during retrieval. Moreover, it is also possible that differences in brain responses develop or change over the rest time between phases, influencing how these conditions manifest across different stages of information processing |
|---|