Recollection and familiarity, and source memory

Question 1

Suggested that recognition involves 2 components

Initial sense of familiarity
…may or may not be followed by recollection of the context of the previous encounter
Supported by Huppret & Piercy 1976

Answer 1

Mandler 1980

Question 2

Korsakoff amnesiacs and controls. Participants tried to remember pictures on two separate days

Found evidence that familiarity and recognition components are separable

Expeiment 1: examined recognition memory for pictures, high frequency words and low frequency words, at retention intervals of 10 minutes, 1 week, and 7 weeks.

• Korsakoff’s showed surprisingly good recognition of pictures and low frequency words, scoring well above chance even at the longest retention interval; and no evidence of a faster than normal rate of forgetting.

Experiment 2: Familiarity of pictures was varied so that correct recognition involved either a) explicit decisions as to whether items were seen 10 minutes or 24 hours previously; or b) decisions as to whether items had ever been seen before

• Korsakoffs were severely impaired in making the first type of discrimination but had little difficulty with the second type. It is suggested that the primary defect in amnesia may concern contextual memory rather than memory for items as such.
• Controls were able to use recollection, while amnesiacs were unable to do so- relying on familiarity??*

Answer 2

Huppert and Piercy 1976

Question 3

Supported Tulving (1985)’s distinction between remember and know.

Showed that dividing attention during learning reduced remember responses but not know responses

Answer 3

Gardiner and Parkin 1990

Question 4

Supporting Tulving 1985

Showed that preceding a target with masked repetition of the target or an unrelated word affected know responses but not remember responses.

Answer 4

Rajaram 1993

Question 5

Suggested that subjects could reliably classify recognition responses as to whether or not they were based on conscious episodic recollection. Remember responses: instructed to be made to illustrate conscious recollection of the previous episode
Know responses indicated a feeling of familiarity without conscious recollection.

Distinction supported:

• Gardiner and Parkin 1990: dividing attention during learning reduces remember but not know
• Rajaram (1993): preceding a target with masked reprtition of the target or unrelated word affects know but not remember

Suggest that recollection depends on attention, but familiarily depends on perceptual fluency.

Answer 5

Tulving 1985

Question 6

Case study.

Reported a patient with selective hippocampal damage: produced fewer remember responses than controls, but a similar number of know responses

Answer 6

Mayes et al 2002

Question 7

Tested patients with extensive temporal lobe damage, and patients with selective hippocampal damage

Both groups produced fewer remember responses than controls.

Only group with extensive damage made fewer know responses.

Answer 7

Yonelinas et al 2002

Question 8

Reported impairments in both recollection and familiarity in patients with selective hippocampal lesions

Question 9

fMRI study

Greater activity in hippocampus for correct remember versus correct know responses.

Question 10

Reanalysed several previous neuroimaging studies

Identified common region in medial rtemporal lobe, close to perirhinal cortex, in which activetation was modulated by relative familiarity.

NB echoes animal studies linking perirhinal cortex with familiarity processing

Answer 10

Henson et al 2003

Question 11

Source memory tasks are another way of measuring recognition and familiarity

Forced participants to make rapid memory decisions.

• Dissociated source memory from recognition memory
• Requiring reponses in 300ms resulted in disproportionate reduction in source memory

Answer 11

Johnsson et al 1994

Question 12

Tested memory for of pateints with frontal lobe lesions for previously learned facts and when the facts had been learned.

Patients exhibited good memory for facts themselves, but poor recollection of when had been learned

Answer 12

Janowsky et al 1989

Question 13

Evidence that frontal lobe damage may be more critical even than hippocampal dysfunction for source memory.

Answer 13

Simons et al 2002

Question 14

Tested memory of older adults for previously presented sentances and for which of 3 voices had read sentances out.

Older adults divided into groups according to their performance on batteries of tests designed to engage the frontal lobes or medial temporal lobes

Older adults with high frontal function outperformed those with low frontal function in osource memory. No difference between those with high and low medial temporal lobe function

Answer 14

Glisky et al 1995

Question 15

Neuroimaging study.

• Greater activity in left anterior frontal cortex during specific source recollection than general recognition

Answer 15

Rangahath et al 2000

Question 16

Neuroimaging

• Activity in the hippocampus during encoding predicted whether source of words was later correctly recalled.

Answer 16

Davahi et al 2003

Question 17

Neuroimaging.

Activity in right hippocampus at retrieval when participants recollected the spatial position in which stimuli were previously presented

Answer 17

Cansino et al 2002

Question 18

Reality monitoring.

Distinguished between internally-generated sources (e.g. thought, imagination) and externally-derived sources (where, when) and termed the processes involved in discriminating between the two: reality monitoring. Disruptions may underly the delusions and hallucinations seen in psychotic disorders

Answer 18

Johnson et al 1993

Question 19

Asked healthy individulas ot perform a memory taks that involved discriminating between words that had been previously perceived vs imaginged.

Observed activity in the same brain regains that are dysfunctional in schizophrenia

Answer 19

Simone et al 2006