Not so different after all? An event-related potential study on item and source memory for object-scene pairs in German and Chinese young adults.
ERP
culture
item memory
old/new effect
source memory
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
02
06
2023
accepted:
21
08
2023
medline:
29
9
2023
pubmed:
29
9
2023
entrez:
29
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In recent years, several cross-cultural studies reported that Westerners focus more on central aspects of a scene (e.g., an object) relative to peripheral aspects (e.g., the background), whereas Easterners more evenly allocate attention to central and peripheral aspects. In memory tasks, Easterners exhibit worse recognition for the central object when peripheral aspects are changed, whereas Westerners are less affected by peripheral changes. However, most of these studies rely on hit rates without correcting for response bias, whereas studies accounting for response bias failed to replicate cultural differences in memory tasks. In this event-related potential (ERP) study, we investigated item and source memory for semantically unrelated object-scene pairs in German and Chinese young adults using memory measures corrected for response bias (i.e., the discrimination index Pr). Both groups completed study-test cycles with either item memory tests or source memory tests. In item memory blocks, participants completed an old/new recognition test for the central object. Source memory blocks entailed an associative recognition test for the association between object and background. Item and source memory were better for intact than for recombined pairs. However, as verified with frequentist and Bayesian analyzes, this context effect was not modulated by culture. The ERP results revealed an old/new effect for the item memory task in both groups which was again not modulated by culture. Our findings suggest that cultural differences in young adults do not manifest in intentional memory tasks probing memory for object-scene pairs without semantic relations when using bias-corrected memory measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37771351
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1233594
pmc: PMC10525332
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1233594Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Weigl, Shao, Wang, Zheng, Li, Kray and Mecklinger.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 16;100(19):11163-70
pubmed: 12960375
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jun;11(6):251-7
pubmed: 17481940
Int J Psychophysiol. 2007 May;64(2):146-56
pubmed: 17331603
Neuroimage. 2010 Apr 1;50(2):772-81
pubmed: 20045471
Gerontology. 2006;52(5):306-13
pubmed: 16974102
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2020 Oct;20(5):1027-1040
pubmed: 32839959
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 May;34(5):623-34
pubmed: 18413894
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Feb;62(2):276-85
pubmed: 18785074
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2022 Oct;194:107655
pubmed: 35788058
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 30;102(35):12629-33
pubmed: 16116075
Cogn Neurosci. 2014;5(1):45-53
pubmed: 24354782
Neuropsychologia. 2020 Sep;146:107527
pubmed: 32540265
Psychol Aging. 2011 Mar;26(1):48-59
pubmed: 21038967
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2023 Sep;203:107795
pubmed: 37394031
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2006 Jun;6(2):102-9
pubmed: 17007231
Nature. 2004 Jan 22;427(6972):311-2
pubmed: 14737157
Cogn Neurosci. 2014;5(1):17-25
pubmed: 24168198
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Nov;81(5):922-34
pubmed: 11708567
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Sep;68:621-638
pubmed: 27365154
Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Dec;36(12):5003-17
pubmed: 26333392
Behav Res Methods. 2023 Jan 26;:
pubmed: 36703003
Brain Res. 2016 Jan 1;1630:171-82
pubmed: 26604033
Behav Brain Res. 2015 Apr 15;283:1-10
pubmed: 25595422
Psychol Bull. 2007 Sep;133(5):800-32
pubmed: 17723031
J Neurosci. 2009 Jun 24;29(25):8016-21
pubmed: 19553441
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2013 Nov;68(6):872-81
pubmed: 23419868
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Jun;5(2-3):242-53
pubmed: 19776220
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2007 Mar;7(1):44-52
pubmed: 17598734
Psychol Sci. 2014 Jun;25(6):1169-77
pubmed: 24747168
J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Jul;19(7):1089-103
pubmed: 17583986
Soc Neurosci. 2013;8(1):63-74
pubmed: 23116082
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Apr 11;97(8):4398-403
pubmed: 10716738
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Mar;117(1):34-50
pubmed: 2966230
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jun;11(6):243-50
pubmed: 17475539
J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2021 Mar;10(1):33-43
pubmed: 34026469
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Jul;87(1):57-65
pubmed: 15250792
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Oct;62(10):1873-80
pubmed: 19459136
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2020 Apr;20(2):250-264
pubmed: 31900874
Adv Cogn Psychol. 2016 Dec 31;12(4):169-178
pubmed: 28154613
Neuron. 2008 Aug 28;59(4):554-60
pubmed: 18760692
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Neuroreport. 2014 Jun 18;25(9):656-60
pubmed: 24870983
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
pubmed: 19293088
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Mar;94(3):365-81
pubmed: 18284287
Memory. 2018 Jul;26(6):751-758
pubmed: 29173027
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023 Aug 3;153:105347
pubmed: 37543177