“Neural activity reveals interactions between episodic and semantic memory systems during retrieval”: Correction to Weidemann et al. (2019).

2019 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 782-782
2019 ◽  
Vol 148 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph T. Weidemann ◽  
James E. Kragel ◽  
Bradley C. Lega ◽  
Gregory A. Worrell ◽  
Michael R. Sperling ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 1005-1028 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franziska Orscheschek ◽  
Tilo Strobach ◽  
Torsten Schubert ◽  
Timothy Rickard

There is evidence in the literature that two retrievals from long-term memory cannot occur in parallel. To date, however, that work has explored only the case of two retrievals from newly acquired episodic memory. These studies demonstrated a retrieval bottleneck even after dual-retrieval practice. That retrieval bottleneck may be a global property of long-term memory retrieval, or it may apply only to the case of two retrievals from episodic memory. In the current experiments, we explored whether that apparent dual-retrieval bottleneck applies to the case of one retrieval from episodic memory and one retrieval from highly overlearned semantic memory. Across three experiments, subjects learned to retrieve a left or right keypress response form a set of 14 unique word cues (e.g., black—right keypress). In addition, they learned a verbal response which involved retrieving the antonym of the presented cue (e.g., black—“white”). In the dual-retrieval condition, subjects had to retrieve both the keypress response and the antonym word. The results suggest that the retrieval bottleneck is superordinate to specific long-term memory systems and holds across different memory components. In addition, the results support the assumption of a cue-level response chunking account of learned retrieval parallelism.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Gatti ◽  
Luca Rinaldi ◽  
Giuliana Mazzoni ◽  
Tomaso Vecchi

There is a fervent debate about the processes underpinning false memories formation. Seminal theories have suggested that semantic memory would be involved in false memories production, while episodic memory would counter their formation. Yet, direct evidence corroborating such view is still missing. Here, we tested this possibility by asking participants to perform the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) task, a typical false memory paradigm, in which they had to study lists of words and subsequently to recognize and distinguish them from new words (i.e., the false memory items). The same participants were also required to perform a semantic task and an episodic-source memory task. Our results showed that a higher number of false memories in the DRM task occurred for those participants with better semantic memory abilities, while a lower number of false memories occurred for participants with better episodic abilities. These findings support a key role of semantic processes in false memory formation and, more generally, help clarify the specific contribution of different memory systems to false recognitions.


Psychology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Jones ◽  
Johnathan Avery

Semantic memory refers to our general world knowledge that encompasses memory for concepts, facts, and the meanings of words and other symbolic units that constitute formal communication systems such as language or math. In the classic hierarchical view of memory, declarative memory was subdivided into two independent modules: episodic memory, which is our autobiographical store of individual events, and semantic memory, which is our general store of abstracted knowledge. However, more recent theoretical accounts have greatly reduced the independence of these two memory systems, and episodic memory is typically viewed as a gateway to semantic memory accessed through the process of abstraction. Modern accounts view semantic memory as deeply rooted in sensorimotor experience, abstracted across many episodic memories to highlight the stable characteristics and mute the idiosyncratic ones. A great deal of research in neuroscience has focused on both how the brain creates semantic memories and what brain regions share the responsibility for storage and retrieval of semantic knowledge. These include many classic experiments that studied the behavior of individuals with brain damage and various types of semantic disorders but also more modern studies that employ neuroimaging techniques to study how the brain creates and stores semantic memories. Classically, semantic memory had been treated as a miscellaneous area of study for anything in declarative memory that was not clearly within the realm of episodic memory, and formal models of meaning in memory did not advance at the pace of models of episodic memory. However, recent developments in neural networks and corpus-based tools for modeling text have greatly increased the sophistication of models of semantic memory. There now exist several good computational accounts to explain how humans transform first-order experience with the world into deep semantic representations and how these representations are retrieved and used in meaning-based behavioral tasks. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with the more salient publications, reviews, and themes of major advances in the various subfields of semantic memory over the past forty-five years. For more in-depth coverage, we refer the reader to the manuscripts in the General Overviews section.


2015 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 211-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Geary ◽  
Mary K. Hoard ◽  
Lara Nugent ◽  
Jeffrey N. Rouder

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 296-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. M. J. Edelstyn ◽  
J. Drakeford ◽  
F. Oyebode ◽  
C. D. Findlay

Background:Recognition memory dysfunction has been frequently reported in schizophrenic populations, and has been linked with the development of delusions and thought disorder. A range of neuropsychological abnormalities have also been documented in the biological asymptomatic relatives of patients with schizophrenia; however, recognition memory has not been one of them.Aim:This study was carried out in order to investigate: (i) verbal and facial recognition memory in terms of accuracy and false alarm rates; and (ii) contributions from the episodic and semantic memory systems to recognition memory, in the biological asymptomatic parents of a reported schizophrenic patient and a set of male and female psychotic controls.Results:Gender differences failed to emerge between the psychotic controls on any of the recognition measures (discrimination accuracy, response bias, hit and false alarm rates, ‘remember’ and ‘know’ recognition memory decisions). However, there was evidence of recognition dysfunction in the female relative, and to a lesser extent, in the male. Both parent's recognition memory performance profiles were marked by a pathologically elevated false alarm rate, and an increased dependence ‘remember’ judgements, i.e. input from the episodic memory system, to drive recognition memory decisions.Conclusions:These findings are discussed in the context of models of episodic and semantic memory impairment in schizophrenia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhong-Xu Liu ◽  
R Shayna Rosenbaum ◽  
Jennifer D Ryan

Abstract We move our eyes to explore the visual world, extract information, and create memories. The number of gaze fixations—the stops that the eyes make—has been shown to correlate with activity in the hippocampus, a region critical for memory, and with later recognition memory. Here, we combined eyetracking with fMRI to provide direct evidence for the relationships between gaze fixations, neural activity, and memory during scene viewing. Compared to free viewing, fixating a single location reduced: 1) subsequent memory, 2) neural activity along the ventral visual stream into the hippocampus, 3) neural similarity between effects of subsequent memory and visual exploration, and 4) functional connectivity among the hippocampus, parahippocampal place area, and other cortical regions. Gaze fixations were uniquely related to hippocampal activity, even after controlling for neural effects due to subsequent memory. Therefore, this study provides key causal evidence supporting the notion that the oculomotor and memory systems are intrinsically related at both the behavioral and neural level. Individual gaze fixations may provide the basic unit of information on which memory binding processes operate.


1995 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 352-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fritz Strack ◽  
Jens Forster

It has been suggested that the use of different memory systems can be identified by asking subjects whether they remember or know a recognized stimulus (e g, Gardiner & Java, 1990, Tulving, 1985) In this view, remember responses indicate the use of episodic memory, and know responses the use of implicit memory (e g, Gardiner & Java, in press) or semantic memory (Tulving, 1993) We criticize this position on both conceptual and empirical grounds We argue that the concept of knowing and the instructions of the studies confound declarative knowledge (knowledge by description) and familiarity-based knowledge (knowledge by acquaintance) The two types of knowledge, however, seem to be associated with different psychological processes To test this notion, we conducted two recognition experiments in which the response criteria were either explicitly or implicitly manipulated The results clearly suggest that know responses are more likely than remember responses to be influenced by judgmental strategies that do not require a memorial presentation of the known stimulus Self-reports appear to be useful indicators of underlying mechanisms only to the extent that it is sufficiently understood how such reports are generated


2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug Knapp

This study used a phenomenological analysis to investigate the recollections of participants (N=36) of an interpretive program at Lowell National Historic Park. These individuals were interviewed six months following the experience. Four topic areas relating to the participants’ long-term memory of the interpretive program were identified: (a) personal connections with the tour, (b) program information retention, (c) positive visitor responses, and (d) ranger attributes. Results indicated that the personal connections made during the program were influential in creating vivid episodic memories. Some of the responses from the participants went beyond episodic information and could be associated with conceptual thinking associated with semantic memory or knowledge. The findings of this study, along with literature associated with long-term memory research, offer a potential model of learning for interpretation related to episodic/semantic memory systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document