Top

Gepubliceerd in:

07-11-2020 | Original Article

Unitization could facilitate item recognition but inhibit verbatim recognition for picture stimuli: behavioral and event-related potential study

Auteurs: Zejun Liu, Chunyan Guo

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2021

Abstract

It is widely accepted that unitization can promote familiarity-based associative recognition, but the effect of unitization on item recognition remains unclear. The goals of this study were to elaborate on how unitization affected item recognition and the neural correlates of familiarity and recollection for item recognition. In study, the participants were asked to learn related and unrelated picture pairs, and in test, they were required to distinguish single old pictures form new pictures. In experiment 1, we used R/K/N paradigm to estimate the contribution of familiarity and recollection to item recognition, the results showed that unitization could improve item recognition through increasing recollection selectively. In experiment 2, we used ERP old/new effects to estimate the neural correlates of familiarity and recollection, the results showed that unitization could improve item recognition through a selective reduction in LPC effect. Inspired by DRM paradigm, in experiment 3, we divided the new pictures into semantically related lure pictures and semantically unrelated new pictures to explore the effects of unitization on item recognition and verbatim recognition (the ability to distinguish old pictures from lure pictures). The behavioral results showed that unitization could improve item recognition, but it damaged verbatim recognition. The ERP results revealed that there were larger LPC effects in the unrelated condition than in the related condition, regardless of item or verbatim recognition. In summary, we believed that unitization could indeed improve item recognition, but it damaged verbatim recognition.

vorige artikel Mental representations of recently learned nested environments

volgende artikel The emotion–facial expression link: evidence from human and automatic expression recognition

Ahmad, F. N., & Hockley, W. E. (2014). The role of familiarity in associative recognition of unitized compound word pairs. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(12), 2301–2324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.923007CrossRefPubMed

Ahmad, F. N., Moscovitch, M., & Hockley, W. E. (2017). Effects of varying presentation time on long-term recognition memory for scenes: verbatim and gist representations. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0672-1CrossRef

Andermane, N., & Bowers, J. S. (2015). Detailed and gist-like visual memories are forgotten at similar rates over the course of a week. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1358–1363. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0800-0CrossRef

Auckland, M. E., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2007). Nontarget objects can influence perceptual processes during object recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 332–337. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194073CrossRef

Bader, R., Mecklinger, A., HoppstöDter, M., & Meyer, P. (2010). Recognition memory for one-trial-unitized word pairs: evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroimage, 50(2), 772–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.100CrossRefPubMed

Borota, D., Murray, E., Keceli, G., Chang, A., Watabe, J. M., Ly, M., et al. (2014). Post-study caffeine administration enhances memory consolidation in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 17(2), 201–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3623CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boucher, O., Chouinard-Leclaire, C., Muckle, G., Westerlund, A., Burden, M. J., Jacobson, S. W., et al. (2016). An erp study of recognition memory for concrete and abstract pictures in school-aged children. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 106, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.06.009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Buchler, N. G., Light, L. L., & Reder, L. M. (2008). Memory for items and associations: Distinct representations and processes in associative recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.04.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Craig, M., & Dewar, M. (2018). Rest-related consolidation protects the fine detail of new memories. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 6857–6864. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25313-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268CrossRef

Curran, T. (2000). Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity. MemCognit, 28(6), 923–938. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209340CrossRef

Curran, T., & Cleary, A. M. (2003). Using erps to dissociate recollection from familiarity in picture recognition. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00192-1CrossRefPubMed

Davenport, J. L. (2007). Consistency effects between objects in scenes. Memory & Cognition, 35, 393–401. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193280CrossRef

Delhaye, E., Tibon, R., Gronau, N., Levy, D. A., & Bastin, C. (2017). Misrecollection prevents older adults from benefitting from semantic relatedness of the memoranda in associative memory. Aging Neuropsychology & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2017.1358351CrossRef

Everaert, J., & Koster, E. (2015). Interactions between emotional attention, encoding, and retrieval of ambiguous information: an eye-tracking study. Association for Behavioral & Cognitive Therapies Convention, 15, 539.

Frisson, S., Niswanderklement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2011). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X181304CrossRef

Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 930–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.930CrossRef

Gronau, N., & Shachar, M. (2014). Contextual integration of visual objects necessitates attention. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 695–714. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0617-8CrossRef

Henderson, J. M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1987). Effects of foveal priming and extrafoveal preview on object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.449CrossRefPubMed

Jones, T. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2001). Feature and conjunction errors in recognition memory: Evidence for dual-process theory. Journal of Memory & Language, 45(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2761CrossRef

Kamp, S. M., Bader, R., & Mecklinger, A. (2016). The effect of unitizing word pairs on recollection versus familiarity-based retrieval — further evidence from erps. Advances in Cognitive Psychology., 12(4), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0196-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liu, Z., Wang, Y., & Guo, C. (2020). Under the condition of unitization at encoding rather than unitization at retrieval, familiarity could support associative recognition and the relationship between unitization and recollection was moderated by unitization-congruence. Learning & Memory, 27, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.051094.119CrossRef

Liu, Z., Wu, J., & Guo, C. (2019). The effect of unitization on associative recognition was not moderated by the unitization-congruence between original and rearranged picture pairs (UC) for picture stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01260-9CrossRefPubMed

Liu, Z., Wu, J., Wang, Y., & Guo, C. (2020). Unitization does not impede overall item recognition performance: Behavioral and event-related potential study. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 167, 107130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2019.107130CrossRefPubMed

Lloyd, M. E., Hartman, A., Ngo, C. T., Ruser, N., Westerman, D. L., & Miller, J. K. (2015). Not enough familiarity for fluency: Definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0449-3CrossRef

Loiotile, R. E., & Courtney, S. M. (2015). A signal detection theory analysis of behavioral pattern separation paradigms. Learning & Memory (Cold Spring Harbor, NY), 22(8), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.038141.115CrossRef

Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: the judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.252CrossRef

Martin, W. (2008). Recollection- and familiarity-based decisions reflect memory strength. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.001.2008CrossRef

Oded, B., Neta, L., Niv, R., Michael, G., Yonatan, G. G., & Anat, M. (2015). Delineating the effect of semantic congruency on episodic memory: The role of integration and relatedness. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115624CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Memory and Cognition, 3, 635–647.CrossRef

Parks, C. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2015). The importance of unitization for familiaritybased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 881–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000068CrossRefPubMed

Pilgrim, L. K., Murray, J. G., & Donaldson, D. I. (2012). Characterizing episodic memory retrieval: electrophysiological evidence for diminished familiarity following unitization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(8), 1671–1681. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00186CrossRefPubMed

Rhodes, S. M., & Donaldson, D. I. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence for the effect of interactive imagery on episodic memory: Encouraging familiarity for non-unitized stimuli during associative recognition. Neuroimage, 39, 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.041CrossRefPubMed

Schulman, A. (1974). Memory for words recently classified. Memory & Cognition, 2, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197491CrossRef

Shao, H., Opitz, B., Yang, J., & Weng, X. (2016). Recollection reduces unitized familiarity effect. Memory, 24(4), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1021258CrossRefPubMed

Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. M. (2012). Levels of processing influences both recollection and familiarity: evidence from a modified remember-know paradigm. Consciousness & Cognition, 21(1), 438–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.022CrossRef

Stahl, C., & Klauer, K. C. (2008). A simplified conjoint recognition paradigm for the measurement of gist and verbatim memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.570CrossRefPubMed

Staresina, B. P., Gray, J. C., & Davachi, L. (2009). Event congruency enhances episodic memory encoding through semantic elaboration and relational binding. Cerebral Cortex, 19(5), 1198–1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn165CrossRefPubMed

Tibon, R., Gronau, N., Scheuplein, A. L., Mecklinger, A., & Levy, D. A. (2014). Associative recognition processes are modulated by the semantic unitizability of memoranda. Brain and Cognition, 92C, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.09.009CrossRefPubMed

Xu, M., & Bellezza, F. S. (2001). A comparison of the multimemory and detection theories of know and remember recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 1197–1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1197CrossRef

Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory & Language, 46(3), 441–517. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864CrossRef

Yonelinas, A. P., Hopfinger, J. B., Buonocore, M. H., Kroll, N. E. A., & Baynes, K. (2001). Hippocampal, parahippocampal and occipital-temporal contributions to associative and item recognition memory: an fmri study. NeuroReport, 12(2), 359–363. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200102120-00035CrossRefPubMed

Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 622–643.CrossRef

Zheng, Z., Li, J., Xiao, F., Broster, L. S., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Electrophysiological evidence for the effects of unitization on associative recognition memory in older adults. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 121, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.03.006CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Unitization could facilitate item recognition but inhibit verbatim recognition for picture stimuli: behavioral and event-related potential study
Auteurs: Zejun Liu
Chunyan Guo
Publicatiedatum: 07-11-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01442-w

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2021

Mental representations of recently learned nested environments

Associations of observer’s gender, Body Mass Index and internalization of societal beauty ideals to visual body processing

Hazardous tools: the emergence of reasoning in human tool use

The emotion–facial expression link: evidence from human and automatic expression recognition

Influence of the stimulus material on gender differences in a mental-rotation test

Attentional patterns as emotion regulation strategies during the anticipation of repetitive emotional scenes: an eye-tracker study