1. ERP Correlates of Familiarity- and Recollection-Based Recognition: Modification by Study-Test Repetition Marianne de Chastelaine Cognitive Electrophysiology Laboratory, New York State Psychiatric Institute, N.Y., N.Y.

2. Dual-process models Recognition judgments: Slow Intentional Conscious access to contextual information from study Fast-acting Automatic Devoid of contextual information from study Familiarity: Recollection:

3. Why use recollection? BUT:  Recollection provides a reliable basis for making recognition judgments (Jacoby & Whitehouse, 1989)  RTs to ‘remembered’ items faster than those to ‘known’ items - recognition based on familiarity requires further monitoring (Henson et al., 1999)  Old/new discrimination: familiarity  Source discrimination: recollection  Old/new discrimination: recollection

4. Early Frontal & Parietal EM Effects

5. Aims  ERP investigations: generally used items that have a great deal of pre-experimental familiarity (namable pictures, words).  Maybe the early frontal EM effect reflects an interaction between pre-experimental and experimental familiarity (Nessler, Mecklinger & Penney, 2005) or conceptual priming (Yovel & Paller, 2004).  We used unfamiliar and, initially, unnamable symbol-like stimuli to investigate modulations of the putative ERP correlates of familiarity and recollection by the memory strength engendered with increasing repetition of stimuli.  Young adults (n=18) memorized the same 40 items which they viewed in each of 4 study/test blocks (new items differed for each test) (Johnson et al., 1985; 1998).

6. Study Test RightLeft RightLeft NewOld KR Design

7. EEG Recording & Predictions EEG Recording:  62 Ag/AgCl electrodes, ref: linked mastoids, continuous, DC-100 Hz, 500 Hz sampling rate  epoch: 2000 ms (100 ms pre- stimulus baseline)  stimulus duration: 500 ms Predictions:  We hypothesized that, initially, old/new judgments would be based on familiarity whereas, with repetition, recollection would be increasingly relied upon.  Thus, if the mid-frontal and left parietal EM effects reflect, respectively, familiarity and recollection, we expected a robust early frontal EM effect to be elicited by studied items in Test 1 and the parietal EM effect to increase in amplitude across Tests.

8. Behavior (1)

9. Behavior (2)

10. ERPs 0 1000 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 0 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 old new

11. Topography Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 300-500 ms 500-700 ms  1.8 -1.8 μVμV

12. Onset Latencies of Parietal EM effect 1 5 4 3 2 0 6 7 8 0100200300400500600700 1 5 4 3 2 0 6 7 8 0 100200300400500600700 T-value Time (msec) T-value Time (msec) Test 1 Test 2 1 5 4 3 2 0 6 7 8 0100200300400500600700 T-value Time (msec) Test 3 1 5 4 3 2 0 6 7 8 0 100200300400500600700 T-value Time (msec) Test 4 380 300 320 220 430-630 470-670 410-610

13. Pr and early EM effects 1 5 4 3 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Amplitude (μV ) Pr Value Parietal EM effect Early frontal EM effect Pr 6 7

14. Discussion  A robust early frontal EM effect after the first repetition of pre- experimentally unfamiliar and unnamable symbols supports the notion that this EM effect does indeed reflect experimental familiarity.  With each test repetition, recollection was relied upon to a greater degree to make the recognition judgment.  There was increasingly rapid access to these contextual details – given the fast RTs & very early onset of the parietal EM effect, how could this reflect slow, controlled processing?  The findings suggest that, while controlled processing may be necessary for the recollection of poorly learnt items, as memory traces strengthen, the mere presentation of an item may automatically trigger its recollection (see also Gardiner et al., 2005).

15. Contributors: David Friedman Yael Cycowicz Cort Horton Brenda Malcolm