Limits...
Implicit recognition based on lateralized perceptual fluency.

Vargas IM, Voss JL, Paller KA - Brain Sci (2012)

Bottom Line: We propose that this "implicit recognition" results from perceptual fluency that influences responding without awareness of memory retrieval.These correct guesses likely reflect a contribution from implicit recognition, given that when the stimulated visual hemifield was the same at study and test, recognition accuracy was higher for guess responses than for responses with any level of confidence.The dramatic difference in guessing accuracy as a function of lateralized perceptual overlap between study and test suggests that implicit recognition arises from memory storage in visual cortical networks that mediate repetition-induced fluency increments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. iliana.m.vargas@u.northwestern.edu.

ABSTRACT
In some circumstances, accurate recognition of repeated images in an explicit memory test is driven by implicit memory. We propose that this "implicit recognition" results from perceptual fluency that influences responding without awareness of memory retrieval. Here we examined whether recognition would vary if images appeared in the same or different visual hemifield during learning and testing. Kaleidoscope images were briefly presented left or right of fixation during divided-attention encoding. Presentation in the same visual hemifield at test produced higher recognition accuracy than presentation in the opposite visual hemifield, but only for guess responses. These correct guesses likely reflect a contribution from implicit recognition, given that when the stimulated visual hemifield was the same at study and test, recognition accuracy was higher for guess responses than for responses with any level of confidence. The dramatic difference in guessing accuracy as a function of lateralized perceptual overlap between study and test suggests that implicit recognition arises from memory storage in visual cortical networks that mediate repetition-induced fluency increments.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean recognition accuracy for each condition (error bars indicate SEM; ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061784&req=5

brainsci-02-00022-f001: Mean recognition accuracy for each condition (error bars indicate SEM; ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01).

Mentions: Recognition accuracy, as shown in Figure 1, was systematically influenced by whether or not there was a match between visual hemifield of presentation at study and at test. There was no overall difference in accuracy for any-confidence compared to guess responses [F(1,23) = 1.01]. Yet, recognition responses were more accurate for kaleidoscopes that appeared on the same side during study and test (M = 0.672, SE = 0.015) than for those that appeared on different sides [M = 0.562, SE = 0.017; F(1,23) = 51.42, p < 0.001]. Furthermore, an interaction between response confidence and visual hemifield consistency indicated that this same-side advantage was driven by guess responses [F(1,23) = 43.27, p < 0.001]. Guess responses were more accurate when kaleidoscopes were presented in the same visual hemifield at study and test (M = 0.711, SE = 0.015) than when presentations were in different visual hemifields [M = 0.497, SE = 0.021; t(23) = 10.10, p < 0.001]. Guessing accuracy for different-side trials was no better than chance [t(23) = 0.16], whereas guessing accuracy for same-side trials was significantly above chance [t(23) = 13.94, p < 0.001]. For any-confidence responses, accuracy was greater than chance for same-side trials [t(23) = 5.29, p < 0.001] and different-side trials [t(23) = 5.03, p < 0.001], but accuracy was not reliably influenced by whether kaleidoscopes were presented to the same visual hemifield during study and test [t(23) = 0.17]. Accuracy was significantly higher for guess responses with hemifield presentation the same at study and test than for confident responses collapsed across whether or not visual hemifield was consistent [t(23) = 3.04, p < 0.01]. Additionally, accuracy for confident responses collapsed across hemifield consistency was higher than for guess responses with a different hemifield presentation at study and test [t(23) = 4.55, p < 0.001].


Implicit recognition based on lateralized perceptual fluency.

Vargas IM, Voss JL, Paller KA - Brain Sci (2012)

Mean recognition accuracy for each condition (error bars indicate SEM; ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061784&req=5

brainsci-02-00022-f001: Mean recognition accuracy for each condition (error bars indicate SEM; ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01).
Mentions: Recognition accuracy, as shown in Figure 1, was systematically influenced by whether or not there was a match between visual hemifield of presentation at study and at test. There was no overall difference in accuracy for any-confidence compared to guess responses [F(1,23) = 1.01]. Yet, recognition responses were more accurate for kaleidoscopes that appeared on the same side during study and test (M = 0.672, SE = 0.015) than for those that appeared on different sides [M = 0.562, SE = 0.017; F(1,23) = 51.42, p < 0.001]. Furthermore, an interaction between response confidence and visual hemifield consistency indicated that this same-side advantage was driven by guess responses [F(1,23) = 43.27, p < 0.001]. Guess responses were more accurate when kaleidoscopes were presented in the same visual hemifield at study and test (M = 0.711, SE = 0.015) than when presentations were in different visual hemifields [M = 0.497, SE = 0.021; t(23) = 10.10, p < 0.001]. Guessing accuracy for different-side trials was no better than chance [t(23) = 0.16], whereas guessing accuracy for same-side trials was significantly above chance [t(23) = 13.94, p < 0.001]. For any-confidence responses, accuracy was greater than chance for same-side trials [t(23) = 5.29, p < 0.001] and different-side trials [t(23) = 5.03, p < 0.001], but accuracy was not reliably influenced by whether kaleidoscopes were presented to the same visual hemifield during study and test [t(23) = 0.17]. Accuracy was significantly higher for guess responses with hemifield presentation the same at study and test than for confident responses collapsed across whether or not visual hemifield was consistent [t(23) = 3.04, p < 0.01]. Additionally, accuracy for confident responses collapsed across hemifield consistency was higher than for guess responses with a different hemifield presentation at study and test [t(23) = 4.55, p < 0.001].

Bottom Line: We propose that this "implicit recognition" results from perceptual fluency that influences responding without awareness of memory retrieval.These correct guesses likely reflect a contribution from implicit recognition, given that when the stimulated visual hemifield was the same at study and test, recognition accuracy was higher for guess responses than for responses with any level of confidence.The dramatic difference in guessing accuracy as a function of lateralized perceptual overlap between study and test suggests that implicit recognition arises from memory storage in visual cortical networks that mediate repetition-induced fluency increments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. iliana.m.vargas@u.northwestern.edu.

ABSTRACT
In some circumstances, accurate recognition of repeated images in an explicit memory test is driven by implicit memory. We propose that this "implicit recognition" results from perceptual fluency that influences responding without awareness of memory retrieval. Here we examined whether recognition would vary if images appeared in the same or different visual hemifield during learning and testing. Kaleidoscope images were briefly presented left or right of fixation during divided-attention encoding. Presentation in the same visual hemifield at test produced higher recognition accuracy than presentation in the opposite visual hemifield, but only for guess responses. These correct guesses likely reflect a contribution from implicit recognition, given that when the stimulated visual hemifield was the same at study and test, recognition accuracy was higher for guess responses than for responses with any level of confidence. The dramatic difference in guessing accuracy as a function of lateralized perceptual overlap between study and test suggests that implicit recognition arises from memory storage in visual cortical networks that mediate repetition-induced fluency increments.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus