Limits...
Electrophysiological evidence for flexible goal-directed cue processing during episodic retrieval.

Herron JE, Evans LH, Wilding EL - Neuroimage (2016)

Bottom Line: A widely held assumption is that memory retrieval is aided by cognitive control processes that are engaged flexibly in service of memory retrieval and memory decisions.In this experiment we instructed participants to alternate frequently between three episodic memory tasks requiring item recognition or retrieval of one of two different kinds of contextual information encoded in a prior study phase (screen location or encoding task).This outcome constrains functional interpretations of the differences that emerged between the two context conditions and emphasises the utility of this baseline in functional imaging studies of retrieval processing operations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales, UK. Electronic address: HerronJ1@cardiff.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

ERPs elicited by preparatory cues in each of the three retrieval tasks from frontopolar (Fp1, Fp2), anterior (F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8), central (T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8), posterior (P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8) and occipital (O1, O2) electrode sites. These data are a weighted average of ERPs elicited on switch and on stay trials.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4862957&req=5

f0015: ERPs elicited by preparatory cues in each of the three retrieval tasks from frontopolar (Fp1, Fp2), anterior (F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8), central (T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8), posterior (P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8) and occipital (O1, O2) electrode sites. These data are a weighted average of ERPs elicited on switch and on stay trials.

Mentions: A complementary set of analyses was conducted upon ERPs elicited by preparatory cues for the three tasks. Mean amplitudes were calculated for an a priori time window of 700–1900 ms, following Herron & Wilding (2006). Mean ERP amplitudes from an earlier time window of 200–700 ms were also calculated because preparatory ERPs appear to diverge during this period (see Fig. 3). In contrast with the data for new test items, there were sufficient trial numbers to separate the preparatory cue data according to switch/stay trial status. The mean numbers of trials (ranges in parentheses) contributing to each condition of interest were as follows: Operations Cues Switch = 37 (27–46), Operations Cues Stay = 37 (23–46), Location Cues Switch = 39 (26–47), Location Cues Stay = 38 (22–48), Recognition Cues Switch = 37 (26–47), and Recognition Cues Stay = 38 (25–48). The analyses for both epochs included the Switch/Stay factor, and this was the only difference between the factors included in this ANOVA and the one employed in the preceding section examining correct rejections. To anticipate the results, no effects of Switch/Stay were observed, and the preparatory ERPs shown in Fig. 3 are therefore a weighted average of ERPs on switch and on stay trials.


Electrophysiological evidence for flexible goal-directed cue processing during episodic retrieval.

Herron JE, Evans LH, Wilding EL - Neuroimage (2016)

ERPs elicited by preparatory cues in each of the three retrieval tasks from frontopolar (Fp1, Fp2), anterior (F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8), central (T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8), posterior (P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8) and occipital (O1, O2) electrode sites. These data are a weighted average of ERPs elicited on switch and on stay trials.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4862957&req=5

f0015: ERPs elicited by preparatory cues in each of the three retrieval tasks from frontopolar (Fp1, Fp2), anterior (F7, F3, Fz, F4, F8), central (T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8), posterior (P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8) and occipital (O1, O2) electrode sites. These data are a weighted average of ERPs elicited on switch and on stay trials.
Mentions: A complementary set of analyses was conducted upon ERPs elicited by preparatory cues for the three tasks. Mean amplitudes were calculated for an a priori time window of 700–1900 ms, following Herron & Wilding (2006). Mean ERP amplitudes from an earlier time window of 200–700 ms were also calculated because preparatory ERPs appear to diverge during this period (see Fig. 3). In contrast with the data for new test items, there were sufficient trial numbers to separate the preparatory cue data according to switch/stay trial status. The mean numbers of trials (ranges in parentheses) contributing to each condition of interest were as follows: Operations Cues Switch = 37 (27–46), Operations Cues Stay = 37 (23–46), Location Cues Switch = 39 (26–47), Location Cues Stay = 38 (22–48), Recognition Cues Switch = 37 (26–47), and Recognition Cues Stay = 38 (25–48). The analyses for both epochs included the Switch/Stay factor, and this was the only difference between the factors included in this ANOVA and the one employed in the preceding section examining correct rejections. To anticipate the results, no effects of Switch/Stay were observed, and the preparatory ERPs shown in Fig. 3 are therefore a weighted average of ERPs on switch and on stay trials.

Bottom Line: A widely held assumption is that memory retrieval is aided by cognitive control processes that are engaged flexibly in service of memory retrieval and memory decisions.In this experiment we instructed participants to alternate frequently between three episodic memory tasks requiring item recognition or retrieval of one of two different kinds of contextual information encoded in a prior study phase (screen location or encoding task).This outcome constrains functional interpretations of the differences that emerged between the two context conditions and emphasises the utility of this baseline in functional imaging studies of retrieval processing operations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales, UK. Electronic address: HerronJ1@cardiff.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus