Event-related potentials during encoding coincide with subsequent forced-choice mnemonic discrimination.
ERP
Encoding
Encoding variability
Mnemonic discrimination
Subsequent memory effect
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jul 2024
09 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
23
03
2024
accepted:
03
07
2024
medline:
10
7
2024
pubmed:
10
7
2024
entrez:
9
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Computational models and eye-tracking research suggest that encoding variability accounts for the reduced recognition of targets (A) when paired with non-corresponding lures (B') relative to corresponding lures (A'). The current study examined whether neural activity during learning coincided with subsequent performance on the forced-choice Mnemonic Similarity Task (MST). Event-related potential responses were collected during encoding while young adults completed A-B' and A-A' trials of the forced-choice MST. Consistent with previous research, performance was lower on A-B' trials than A-A' trials. The subsequent memory effect was not significant for the A-A' test format. However, for A-B' trials, we observed a significant Accuracy × Stimulus interaction 1000-1200 ms poststimulus onset across frontal and fronto-central electrodes. As hypothesized, subsequently correct A-B' trials were associated with a larger amplitude response at encoding to the target (A) than the original version of the non-corresponding lure (B). However, subsequently incorrect trials were associated with a larger amplitude response to the non-corresponding lure (B) than the target stimulus (A). These findings provide additional support for the effect of encoding variability on mnemonic discrimination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38982127
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66640-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-66640-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15859Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Yassa, M. A. & Stark, C. E. L. Pattern separation in the hippocampus. Trends Neurosci. 34(10), 515–525 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2011.06.006
pubmed: 21788086
pmcid: 3183227
Norman, K. A. & O’Reilly, R. C. Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: A complementary-learning-systems approach. Psychol. Rev. 110(4), 611–646 (2003).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.4.611
pubmed: 14599236
Treves, A. & Rolls, E. T. Computational constraints suggest the need for two distinct input systems to the hippocampal CA3 network. Hippocampus 2(2), 189–199 (1992).
doi: 10.1002/hipo.450020209
pubmed: 1308182
Pidgeon, L. M. & Morcom, A. M. Cortical pattern separation and item-specific memory encoding. Neuropsychologia 85, 256–271 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.026
pubmed: 27018483
Yassa, M. A. et al. Pattern separation deficits associated with increased hippocamal CA3 and dentate gyrus activity in nondemented adults. Hippocampus 21(9), 968–979 (2011).
doi: 10.1002/hipo.20808
pubmed: 20865732
Stark, S. M., Kirwan, C. B. & Stark, C. E. L. Mnemonic similarity task: A tool for assessing hippocampal integrity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23(11), 938–951 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.08.003
pubmed: 31597601
pmcid: 6991464
Huffman, D. J. & Stark, C. E. L. Age-related impairment on a forced-choice version of the Mnemonic Similarity Task. Behav. Neurosci. 131(1), 55–67 (2017).
doi: 10.1037/bne0000180
pubmed: 28004951
Rollins, L., Huffman, D., Walters, L. A. & Bennett, K. Prolonged development of forced-choice recognition when targets are paired with non-corresponding lures. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 236, 105742 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105742
pubmed: 37481987
Rollins, L., Khuu, A. & Lodi, N. Encoding variability accounts for false recognition of noncorresponding lures on the forced-choice Mnemonic Similarity Task. Learn. Mem. 26, 280–283 (2019).
doi: 10.1101/lm.049593.119
pubmed: 31308246
pmcid: 6636543
Rollins, L., Parks, N. & Eakins, R. Effect of encoding variability on rejection of non-corresponding lures: Role of retrieval processes. Conscious. Cogn. 110, 103506 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2023.103506
pubmed: 36989862
Anderson, M. L., James, J. R. & Kirwan, C. B. An event-related potential investigation of pattern separation and pattern completion. Cogn. Neurosci. 8(1), 9–23 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/17588928.2016.1195804
pubmed: 27354098
Cadavid, S. & Beato, M. S. Memory distortion and its avoidance: An event-related potentials study on false recognition and correct rejection. PLoS ONE 11(10), e0164024 (2016).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164024
pubmed: 27711125
pmcid: 5053520
García-Rueda, L., Poch, C. & Campo, P. Forgetting details in visual long-term memory: Decay or interference?. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 16, 887321 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.887321
pubmed: 35928790
pmcid: 9345118
Morcom, A. M. Resisting false recognition: An ERP study of lure discrimination. Brain Res. 1624, 336–348 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.049
pubmed: 26256253
Poch, C., Prieto, A., Hinojosa, J. A. & Campo, P. The impact of increasing similar interfering experiences on mnemonic discrimination: Electrophysiological evidence. Cogn. Neurosci. 10(3), 129–138 (2019).
doi: 10.1080/17588928.2019.1571484
pubmed: 30663508
Friedman, D. & Johnson, R. Jr. Event-related potential (ERP) studies of memory encoding and retrieval: A selective review. Microsc. Res. Tech. 51(1), 6–28 (2000).
doi: 10.1002/1097-0029(20001001)51:1<6::AID-JEMT2>3.0.CO;2-R
pubmed: 11002349
Mecklinger, A. & Kamp, S.-M. Observing memory encoding while it unfolds: Functional interpretation and current debates regarding ERP subsequent memory effects. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 153, 105347 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105347
pubmed: 37543177
Duarte, A., Ranganath, C., Winward, L., Hayward, D. & Knight, R. T. Dissociable neural correlates for familiarity and recollection during the encoding and retrieval of pictures. Cogn. Brain Res. 18(3), 255–272 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.010
Kamp, S.-M. & Zimmer, H. D. Contributions of attention and elaboration to associative encoding in young and older adults. Neuropsychologia 75, 252–264 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.06.026
pubmed: 26115601
Karis, D., Fabiani, M. & Donchin, E. “P300” and memory: Individual differences in the von Restorff effect. Cogn. Psychol. 16, 177–216 (1984).
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(84)90007-0
Estrada-Manilla, C. & Cansino, S. Event-related potential variations in the encoding and retrieval of different amounts of contextual information. Behav. Brain Res. 232(1), 190–201 (2012).
Hintzman, D. L. Judgements of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychol. Rev. 95(4), 528–551 (1988).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.528
Jeneson, A., Kirwan, C. B., Hopkins, R. O., Wixted, J. T. & Squire, L. R. Recognition memory and the hippocampus: A test of the hippocampal contribution to recollection and familiarity. Learn. Mem. 17(1), 63–70 (2010).
doi: 10.1101/lm.1546110
pubmed: 20047986
pmcid: 2807179
Stark, S. M., Yassa, M. A., Lacy, J. W., Stark, C. E. L. A task to assess behavioral pattern separation (BPS) in humans: data from healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia 51, 2442–2449 (2013).
Ille, N., Berg, P. & Sherg, M. Artifact correction of the ongoing EEG using spatial filters based on artifact and brain signal topographies. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 19(2), 113–124 (2002).
doi: 10.1097/00004691-200203000-00002
pubmed: 11997722
Kamp, S.-M., Bader, R. & Mecklinger, A. ERP subsequent memory effects differ between inter-item and unitization encoding tasks. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 1–14 (2017).
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00030