Neural Correlates Underlying The Effect of Value on Recognition Memory nice, and cheaper than mine (by 30 cents), check out the abstract for what Mike Cohen is presenting, interesting shit Neural Correlates Underlying The Effect of Value on Recognition Memory MACLab The Memory & Attention Control Laboratory Blake L. Elliott, Chris Blais, Gene A. Brewer Arizona State University Introduction Behavioral Results Parietal Old/New The ability to prioritize information in terms of it’s importance or value is a key aspect of human memory. This ability has been tested using a paradigm called value directed remembering (VDR) in which point values are assigned to stimuli that will later be tested. Participants attempt to score as many points as possible by correctly remembering the stimuli associated with higher value (Watkins and Bloom, 1999; Castel, 2002). In the current experiment we used a modified VDR task to test whether value has any effect on the neural correlates typically observed during a recognition memory task. Successful recognition memory consists of 2 processes, recollection and familiarity (for review, see Yonelinas, 2002). One method used to dissociate these two processes is event related potential’s (ERP’s). Familiarity has been associated with an early frontal ERP component (FN400) and recollection with a later parietal component (parietal old/new; Rugg and Curran, 2007). Post-retrieval operations that influence recollection are associated with the frontal slow wave component. *   High Value Low 95% CI for Mean Difference Outcome M SD n t df Total Hit Rate .78 .12 .65 .18 30 0.07, 0.18 4.766* 29 Recollect .44 .24 .28 .21 0.11, 0.22 6.032* 28 Familiar .34 .37 .19 -0.08, 0.10 1.557 *p<.01 High Value Low Value Higher value words were remembered better than lower valued words. This recognition advantage for high value words was seen only for recollection responses, and not for familiar responses. Significant difference between High Value Hits (M=5.91, SD=3.82) compared to Low Value Hits (M=5.01, SD=3.81) t(29)=3.052 p<.01. 500-800 ms Methods FN400 Frontal Slow Wave 30 Participants Study phase: 40 nouns from the Toronto noun pool assigned either a high value (7 or 9) or low value (1 or 3) Test phase: 80 words, including all 40 from the study phase, self paced responses of either New, Familiar, or Recollect Words were shown for 2 seconds, interstimulus intervals randomly jittered between 300-500 ms Study and test phase 1 block, 5 blocks completed ERP’s: Measured during retrieval, 300-500ms, 500-800ms,and 500-1000ms post-stimulus . Encoding Retrieval No significant difference between High Value Hits (M= -2.00, SD=4.20) and Low Value Hits (M= -2.32, SD=4.65) t(29)=.814. Significant difference between High Value Hits (M=1.95, SD=4.45) compared to Low Value Hits (M=0.84, SD=5.27) t(29)=3.280 p<.05. 300-500 ms 500-1000 ms 9 CAR CAT References Conclusion + + 3 DOG CAR - Allan, K., Wilding, E. L., & Rugg, M. D. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for dissociable processes contributing to recollection. Acta Psychologica, 98(2-3), 231–252. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00044-9. -Castel, A. D., Benjamin, A. S., Craik, F. I. M., & Watkins, M. J. (2002). The effects of aging on selectivity and control in short-term recall. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1078-1085. - Rugg, M. D., & Curran, T. (2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 251-257. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.004 - Watkins, M. J., & Bloom, L. C. (1999). Selectivity in memory: An exploration of willful control over the remembering process. Unpublished manuscript - Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441-517. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864 The behavioral results indicate that higher value words were remembered better than lower valued words, and that this effect was seen solely for recollected responses. This suggests that high value words may have been encoded more deeply than lower value words. The ERP data supports this hypothesis, as the FN400 component shows no effect of value, while the later parietal component and frontal slow wave shows an effect of value. The effect of value on the frontal slow wave suggests that in addition to value effecting retrieval operations, higher values may also increase post-retrieval operations, which may account for some of the effect of value on recollect responses (Allen et. al. 1998). Time … … Lab Website