The Experts below are selected from a list of 2001 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Larry L. Jacoby - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stereotypes as dominant responses on the social facilitation of prejudice in anticipated public contexts
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003Co-Authors: Alan J Lambert, Larry L. Jacoby, Keith B Payne, Lara M Shaffer, Alison L Chasteen, Saera R KhanAbstract:This article challenges the highly intuitive assumption that prejudice should be less likely in public compared with private settings. It proposes that stereotypes may be conceptualized as a type of dominant response (C. L. Hull, 1943; R. B. Zajonc, 1965) whose expression may be enhanced in public settings, especially among individuals high in social anxiety. Support was found for this framework in an impression formation paradigm (Experiment 1) and in a speeded task designed to measure stereotypic errors in perceptual identification (Experiment 2). Use of the Process Dissociation Procedure (B. K. Payne, L. L. Jacoby, & A. J. Lambert, in press) demonstrated that these effects were due to decreases in cognitive control rather than increases in stereotype accessibility. The findings highlight a heretofore unknown and ironic consequence of anticipated public settings: Warning people that others may be privy to their responses may actually increase prejudice among the very people who are most worried about doing the wrong thing in public.
-
invariance in automatic influences of memory toward a user s guide for the Process Dissociation Procedure
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1998Co-Authors: Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Three experiments investigated assumptions of the Process-Dissociation Procedure for separating consciously controlled and automatic influences of memory. Conditions that encouraged direct retrieval revealed Process Dissociations. Manipulating attention during study or manipulating study time affected recollection but left automatic influences of memory relatively invariant. However, paradoxical Dissociations were found when conditions encouraged use of a generate-recognize strategy, violating assumptions underlying the estimation Procedure. Use of subjective reports to gain estimates produced parallel results. Easily observed correlations are shown to be not useful for testing assumptions underlying the Process-Dissociation Procedure. A multinomial model produced results that agree with those from the Process-Dissociation approach.
-
in defense of functional independence violations of assumptions underlying the Process Dissociation Procedure
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1997Co-Authors: Larry L. Jacoby, Ian Begg, Jeffrey P. TothAbstract:Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest Centre,University of TorontoT. Curron and D. L. Hintzman (1995) claim to have shown that the independence assumptionunderlying the Process-Dissociation Procedure (L. L. Jacoby, 1991) is not justified. Theyargued that correlations between Processes at the level of items can result in an underestima-tion of automatic Processes large enough to produce artifactual Dissociations between Processestimates. In contrast, the authors show that the effects of extremely high correlations at thelevel of items are likely to be trivial, and not differential across conditions. Curran andHintzman's Dissociations probably reflect violations of boundary conditions for use of theProcess-Dissociation Procedure, rather than violations of independence.It is important to distinguish between automatic andconsciously controlled memory Processes. For example,although amnesic patients are often unable to consciouslyremember previously presented words on direct memorytests, such as recall or recognition tests, they use the wordson indirect memory tests, such as stem- or fragment-completion tests, more often than would be expected bychance (Moscovitch, Vriezen, & Gottstein, 1993). SimilarDissociations are found in people with normally functioningmemory (Roediger & McDermott, 1993). Comparing directand indirect memory tests has significantly advanced ourunderstanding of automatic and controlled Processes. How-ever, performance rarely reflects only one Process acting inisolation; that is, controlled Processes often influence perfor-mance on indirect memory tests (Holender, 1986; Toth,Reingold, & Jacoby, 1994), and automatic Processes affectperformance on direct memory tests (Jacoby, Toth, Y Jeffrey P.loth, Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest Centre, University ofToronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Preparation of this article was supported by Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council Operating Grant OGP0000281 andby National Science Foundation Grant SBR-9596209. We thankC. M. Kelley and B. Spellman for their helpful comments.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toLarry L. Jacoby, Department of Psychology, McMaster University,1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to jacoby @mcmaster.ca.motel). For an inclusion test, subjects were instructed to usethe stem as a cue to recall an old word or, if they could not doso, to complete the stem with the first word that came tomind. An inclusion test is like a standard test of cued recallwith instructions to guess when recollection fails. Subjectscould complete a stem with an old word either because theyrecollected the old word, with a probability of R, or becausethe old word came automatically to mind, with a probabilityof A. If these two bases for responding are independent, theninclusion performance equals R + A - RA. For an exclusiontest, subjects were instructed to use the stem as a cue torecall an old word but not to use recalled words to completethe stems. That is, subjects were told to exclude old wordsand to complete stems only with new words. In thiscondition, subjects would complete a stem with an old wordonly if the word came automatically to mind withoutrecollection of its prior presentation: A{\ - R) = A — RA.The difference between the inclusion and exclusion testsprovides an estimate of the probability of recollection.Given that estimate, one can compute the probability of anold word automatically coming to mind: A = Exclusion/(1 — R). When these equations were applied to the data fromJacoby et al., results showed that dividing attention signifi-cantly reduced estimates of recollection (.25 vs. .00) but leftautomatic influences almost invariant (.47 vs. .46). That is,the estimates showed a Process Dissociation similar to thetask Dissociations found between direct and indirect memorytests (Koriat & Feuerstein, 1976; Parkin, Reid, & Russo,1990).Table 1 summarizes results from experiments that haveused the Process-Dissociation Procedure to examine theeffects of attention and of presentation duration on R and A.'
-
separating habit and recollection memory slips Process Dissociations and probability matching
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1996Co-Authors: Janine F Hay, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Memory slips are errors in performance that result when an automatic basis for responding (e.g., habit) opposes the intention to perform a specific behavior. Prior research has focused on factors that influence the probability of a memory slip while neglecting factors that facilitate performance. Using L. L. Jacoby's (1991) Process-Dissociation Procedure to examine performance in both a memory-slip and a facilitation condition, the authors separated the contribution of habit and recollection (intentional memory) in a cued-recall task. The authors found that manipulating the strength of habit affected its contribution to performance in a manner that produced probability matching, but recollection was unchanged. In contrast, manipulations of presentation rate and response time influenced recollection but did not affect habit. Such Dissociations support a model of memory in which automatic and intentional influences make independent contributions to performance.
-
Response bias and the Process-Dissociation Procedure
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1996Co-Authors: Andrew P Yonelinas, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Two different approaches for treating response bias in the Process-Dissociation Procedure were assessed: a multinomial approach proposed by A. Buchner, E. Erdfelder, and B. Vaterrodt-Pliinnecke (1995) and a dual-Process, signal-detection approach proposed by A. P. Yonelinas, G. Regehr, and L. L. Jacoby (1995). The authors examined data presented by Buchner et al. and found that, although the signal-detection-based model worked slightly better than the multinomial model, the data did not provide a strong test of either model. However, an examination of other recognition data showed that the multinomial model produced distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity, and it was unable to account for observed receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). In contrast, the dual-Process, signaldetection model produced unbiased estimates and was able to account for the observed ROCs. The authors also provide an overview of the general controversy surrounding the ProcessDissociation approach. Buchner, Erdfelder, and Vaterrodt-Pliinnecke (1995) proposed a modification of the Process-Dissociation Procedure that incorporates response bias. We begin this article by describing the Process-Dissociation Procedure and then describe the multinomial model that Buchner et al. proposed, contrasting their model with a dual-Process, signaldetection method that we (e.g., Yonelinas, 1994; Yonelinas, Regehr, & Jacoby, 1995) have developed to take differences in response bias into account. Next, we examine the data that Buchner et al. used as evidence to support their model and show that our model deals with those data slightly better than does their model. We argue, however, that the manipulations used in their experiments may have influenced both response bias and recollection, and thus their data may not provide a strong test of models. We assess the models further by examining changes in response criterion associated with differences in response confidence and show that the multinomial model, but not the dual-Process, signaldetection model, produces distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity. Finally, we examine receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and find that the model that underlies the multinomial approach is in conflict with the ROC data. In contrast, we show that our signal-detection model accounts well for observed ROCs. While considering models of response bias, we provide a "road map" for contro
Jeffrey P. Toth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of age on estimated familiarity in the Process Dissociation Procedure the role of noncriterial recollection
Memory & Cognition, 2006Co-Authors: Jeffrey P. Toth, Colleen M ParksAbstract:Research on recognition memory using the Process Dissociation Procedure has suggested that although recollection (R) declines with age, familiarity (F) remains age invariant. However, this research has used relatively broad definitions of R. An important question concerns age-related changes in memory when R is defined in terms of specific event details. Yonelinas and Jacoby (1996a) required young participants to recollect specific, criterial details of a prior event and found evidence that recollection of noncriterial details elevated estimates of F yet still operated automatically. In the present study, the issue of noncriterial recollection was examined in the context of aging. The results replicated the effects of noncriterial recollection for the young, but not for the older adults, who also showed overall reduced levels of familiarity.
-
controlled and automatic forms of memory and attention Process purity and the uniqueness of age related influences
Journals of Gerontology Series B-psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 1997Co-Authors: Timothy A Salthouse, Jeffrey P. Toth, Holly E. Hancock, John L. WoodardAbstract:Estimates of controlled and automatic Processes hypothesized to underlie performance in a memory task and in an attention task were derived for 115 participants from 18 to 78 years of age using the Process-Dissociation Procedure. Participants also performed speed and neuropsychological tests that were suspected to be negatively related to age. Process estimates showed good reliability (from .76 to .98), and the qualitative distinction between Processes was supported by the overall pattern of correlations among measures. However, only estimated automatic Processes exhibited unique variance, as they were either weakly related or unrelated both to performance on the other tests and to each other. Estimates of the control Processes, in contrast, shared considerable variance with measures from other tests, and there were no unique, or independent, age-related effects on these measures. The results highlight the need to distinguish between Process purity and the uniqueness of age-related influences in accounting for age differences in cognition.
-
in defense of functional independence violations of assumptions underlying the Process Dissociation Procedure
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1997Co-Authors: Larry L. Jacoby, Ian Begg, Jeffrey P. TothAbstract:Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest Centre,University of TorontoT. Curron and D. L. Hintzman (1995) claim to have shown that the independence assumptionunderlying the Process-Dissociation Procedure (L. L. Jacoby, 1991) is not justified. Theyargued that correlations between Processes at the level of items can result in an underestima-tion of automatic Processes large enough to produce artifactual Dissociations between Processestimates. In contrast, the authors show that the effects of extremely high correlations at thelevel of items are likely to be trivial, and not differential across conditions. Curran andHintzman's Dissociations probably reflect violations of boundary conditions for use of theProcess-Dissociation Procedure, rather than violations of independence.It is important to distinguish between automatic andconsciously controlled memory Processes. For example,although amnesic patients are often unable to consciouslyremember previously presented words on direct memorytests, such as recall or recognition tests, they use the wordson indirect memory tests, such as stem- or fragment-completion tests, more often than would be expected bychance (Moscovitch, Vriezen, & Gottstein, 1993). SimilarDissociations are found in people with normally functioningmemory (Roediger & McDermott, 1993). Comparing directand indirect memory tests has significantly advanced ourunderstanding of automatic and controlled Processes. How-ever, performance rarely reflects only one Process acting inisolation; that is, controlled Processes often influence perfor-mance on indirect memory tests (Holender, 1986; Toth,Reingold, & Jacoby, 1994), and automatic Processes affectperformance on direct memory tests (Jacoby, Toth, Y Jeffrey P.loth, Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest Centre, University ofToronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Preparation of this article was supported by Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council Operating Grant OGP0000281 andby National Science Foundation Grant SBR-9596209. We thankC. M. Kelley and B. Spellman for their helpful comments.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toLarry L. Jacoby, Department of Psychology, McMaster University,1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to jacoby @mcmaster.ca.motel). For an inclusion test, subjects were instructed to usethe stem as a cue to recall an old word or, if they could not doso, to complete the stem with the first word that came tomind. An inclusion test is like a standard test of cued recallwith instructions to guess when recollection fails. Subjectscould complete a stem with an old word either because theyrecollected the old word, with a probability of R, or becausethe old word came automatically to mind, with a probabilityof A. If these two bases for responding are independent, theninclusion performance equals R + A - RA. For an exclusiontest, subjects were instructed to use the stem as a cue torecall an old word but not to use recalled words to completethe stems. That is, subjects were told to exclude old wordsand to complete stems only with new words. In thiscondition, subjects would complete a stem with an old wordonly if the word came automatically to mind withoutrecollection of its prior presentation: A{\ - R) = A — RA.The difference between the inclusion and exclusion testsprovides an estimate of the probability of recollection.Given that estimate, one can compute the probability of anold word automatically coming to mind: A = Exclusion/(1 — R). When these equations were applied to the data fromJacoby et al., results showed that dividing attention signifi-cantly reduced estimates of recollection (.25 vs. .00) but leftautomatic influences almost invariant (.47 vs. .46). That is,the estimates showed a Process Dissociation similar to thetask Dissociations found between direct and indirect memorytests (Koriat & Feuerstein, 1976; Parkin, Reid, & Russo,1990).Table 1 summarizes results from experiments that haveused the Process-Dissociation Procedure to examine theeffects of attention and of presentation duration on R and A.'
-
a response to graf and komatsu s critique of the Process Dissociation Procedure when is caution necessary
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1995Co-Authors: Jeffrey P. Toth, Eyal M Reingold, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Abstract In a recent paper, Graf and Komatsu (1994) argued that the Process Dissociation Procedure (Jacoby, 1991) is limited in its ability to separate and measure conscious and unconscious forms of memory and so should be “handled with caution”. Given that the study of unconscious influences has always posed a difficult problem for memory researchers, we agree with the general emphasis on caution. In this paper, we too advocate caution, especially as it applies to the use of indirect tests, assessing Graf and Komatsu's critique, and using the Process Dissociation Procedure. We address the substantive issues raised by Graf and Komatsu and also point out the errors, both factual and logical, in their paper. Any method proposing to provide separate measures of conscious and unconscious influences requires judicious use and a careful examination of its underlying assumptions. The assumptions underlying the Process Dissociation framework are supported by a large number of experiments spanning a diverse range ...
-
toward a redefinition of implicit memory Process Dissociations following elaborative Processing and self generation
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1994Co-Authors: Jeffrey P. Toth, Eyal M Reingold, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Does conceptual Processing affect unconscious uses of memory? We used a Process-Dissociation Procedure to separate automatic (unconscious) and consciously controlled uses of memory in a stem-completion task. Contrary to results from indirect test conditions, estimates derived from our Procedure showed no effect of self-generati on and no differential effect of semantic and nonsemantic study conditions on automatic uses of memory. These results provide evidence that (a) indirect tests are often contaminated by conscious uses of memory and (b) stem completion is highly dependent on prior perceptual (and perhaps lexical) Processing. The experiments demonstrate the advantages of using Process-Dissociation Procedures over comparisons between direct and indirect tests. Since the advent of psychoanalysi s, researchers have attempted to measure unconscious influences. Much of the contemporary interest in unconscious influences has come from the development of indirect or implicit measures of memory (for reviews see Hintzman, 1990; Richardson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988; Roediger, 1990; Roediger & McDermott, in press; Schacter, 1987). The defining feature of an indirect test is simply the instructions: Subjects are told to Process and respond to stimuli without reference to past experience. The notion is that by telling subjects to respond to stimuli without reference to the past, it is possible to gain an index of unconscious influences of memory; in fact, direct and indirect tests often do respond differently to experimental manipulations. What makes such Dissociations interesting is the possibility that indirect tests can be used to reveal unconscious influences. However, although research using indirect tests provides a strong empirical base for inferring the existence of unconscious influences, there is some question as to whether those tests provide a valid estimate of such influences. A number of researchers have voiced concerns that indirect tests may reflect more than implicit memory—that they may be contaminated by explicit or consciously controlled uses of memory (Jacoby, 1991; Reingold & Merikle, 1988, 1990;
Andrew P Yonelinas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Response bias and the Process-Dissociation Procedure
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1996Co-Authors: Andrew P Yonelinas, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Two different approaches for treating response bias in the Process-Dissociation Procedure were assessed: a multinomial approach proposed by A. Buchner, E. Erdfelder, and B. Vaterrodt-Pliinnecke (1995) and a dual-Process, signal-detection approach proposed by A. P. Yonelinas, G. Regehr, and L. L. Jacoby (1995). The authors examined data presented by Buchner et al. and found that, although the signal-detection-based model worked slightly better than the multinomial model, the data did not provide a strong test of either model. However, an examination of other recognition data showed that the multinomial model produced distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity, and it was unable to account for observed receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). In contrast, the dual-Process, signaldetection model produced unbiased estimates and was able to account for the observed ROCs. The authors also provide an overview of the general controversy surrounding the ProcessDissociation approach. Buchner, Erdfelder, and Vaterrodt-Pliinnecke (1995) proposed a modification of the Process-Dissociation Procedure that incorporates response bias. We begin this article by describing the Process-Dissociation Procedure and then describe the multinomial model that Buchner et al. proposed, contrasting their model with a dual-Process, signaldetection method that we (e.g., Yonelinas, 1994; Yonelinas, Regehr, & Jacoby, 1995) have developed to take differences in response bias into account. Next, we examine the data that Buchner et al. used as evidence to support their model and show that our model deals with those data slightly better than does their model. We argue, however, that the manipulations used in their experiments may have influenced both response bias and recollection, and thus their data may not provide a strong test of models. We assess the models further by examining changes in response criterion associated with differences in response confidence and show that the multinomial model, but not the dual-Process, signaldetection model, produces distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity. Finally, we examine receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and find that the model that underlies the multinomial approach is in conflict with the ROC data. In contrast, we show that our signal-detection model accounts well for observed ROCs. While considering models of response bias, we provide a "road map" for contro
-
incorporating response bias in a dual Process theory of memory
Journal of Memory and Language, 1995Co-Authors: Andrew P Yonelinas, Glenn Regehr, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Abstract We examined several different methods for incorporating response bias into a dual-Process theory of recognition memory. Two high threshold correction methods, which have previously been applied to the Process Dissociation Procedure, and a new, dual-Process signal-detection method, were assessed. An examination of receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) showed that the threshold methods were inappropriate, but that the signal-detection method provided a reasonable account of the observed ROCs. Applying the corrections to a second data set showed that the different correction methods led to dramatically different conclusions, demonstrating that selecting the correct correction method is critical. Moreover, in agreement with the ROC analysis, the signal-detection method was the only one to provide a reasonable account of the data.
-
the relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition effects of size congruency
Journal of Memory and Language, 1995Co-Authors: Andrew P Yonelinas, Larry L. JacobyAbstract:Abstract In three recognition memory experiments, subjects studied a list of randomly generated geometric shapes, followed by a recognition test in which old items were either size congruent (same size at study and test) or size incongruent. In Experiment 1, the Process Dissociation Procedure (Jacoby, 1991) showed that changing the size of the items led to a decrease in both recollection and familiarity. In Experiment 2, the remember/know Procedure (Tulving, 1985) showed that recollection, as indexed by the proportion of "remember" responses, decreased with size incongruence, but familiarity, as indexed by the proportion of "know" responses, increased. The latter effect along with other problems with the remember/know Procedure were found to arise because of the Procedure′s underlying assumption that recollection and familiarity are mutually exclusive. When an independence assumption was combined with the remember/know data (IRK), results agreed with those of the Process Dissociation Procedure. In Experiment 3, receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) were examined using the remember/know Procedure and showed that familiarity was well described by a signal detection Process that was independent of recollection.
-
Receiver-Operating Characteristics in Recognition Memory: Evidence for a Dual-Process Model
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1994Co-Authors: Andrew P YonelinasAbstract:Evidence is presented that recognition judgments are based on an assessment of familiarity, as is described by signal detection theory, but that a separate recollection Process also contributes to performance. In 3 receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) experiments, the Process Dissociation Procedure was used to examine the contribution of these Processes to recognition memory. In Experiments 1 and 2, reducing the length of the study list increased the intercept (d') but decreased the slope of the ROC and increased the probability of recollection but left familiarity relatively unaffected. In Experiment 3, increasing study time increased the intercept but left the slope of the ROC unaffected and increased both recollection and familiarity. In all 3 experiments, judgments based on familiarity produced a symmetrical ROC (slope = 1), but recollection introduced a skew such that the slope of the ROC decreased.
-
separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory measuring recollection
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1993Co-Authors: Larry L. Jacoby, Jeffrey P. Toth, Andrew P YonelinasAbstract:How can conscious and unconscious influences of memory be measured? In this article, a ProcessDissociation Procedure (L. L. Jacoby, 1991) was used to separate automatic (unconscious) and consciously controlled influences within a task. For recall cued with word stems, automatic influences of memory (a) remained invariant across manipulations of attention that substantially reduced conscious recollection and (b) were highly dependent on perceptual similarity from study to test. Comparisons with results obtained through an indirect test show the advantages of the Process-Dissociation Procedure as a means of measuring unconscious influences. The measure of recollection derived from this Procedure is superior to measures gained from classic test theory and signal-detection theory. The Process-Dissociation Procedure combines assumptions from these 2 traditional approaches to measuring memory. Dissociations between performance on direct and indirect tests of memory supply examples of effects of the past in the absence of remembering (for reviews, see Hintzman, 1990; Richardson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988). In an indirect test, subjects are not asked to report on memory for an event as they would be in a direct test, such as in a test of recognition or recall; rather, they engage in some task that can indirectly reflect memory for the occurrence of that event. Word stemand fragment-completion tasks are among the most popular indirect tests of memory (e.g., Graf & Mandler, 1984; Tulving, Schacter & Stark, 1982; Warrington & Weiskrantz, 1974). For a stem-completion task, subjects might read the word scalp and then be presented with the stem sea— with instructions to complete that stem with the first word that comes to mind. Evidence of automatic influences of memory that are dissociated from performance on a direct test is provided by the finding that prior presentation of a word increases the likelihood of that word being used to complete a stem, even though a direct test reveals no memory for the prior presentation of the word. Some of the most striking examples of Dissociations come from the performance of patients suffering a neurological deficit. Korsakoff amnesics, for example, show near-normal effects of memory in their performance of a stem-completion task, even though
Jackie Andrade - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an investigation of learning during propofol sedation and anesthesia using the Process Dissociation Procedure
Anesthesiology, 2000Co-Authors: Clare L Stapleton, Jackie AndradeAbstract:BackgroundMany studies have shown that patients may remember words learned during apparently adequate anesthesia. Performance on memory tests may be influenced by explicit and implicit memory. We used the Process Dissociation Procedure to estimate implicit and explicit memory for words presented dur
-
the directed forgetting effect in word fragment completion an application of the Process Dissociation Procedure
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1995Co-Authors: Riccardo Russo, Jackie AndradeAbstract:In three experiments, subjects were asked to remember and forget study words. In line with previous studies, a directed forgetting effect was observed in a word-fragment completion task: Instructions to remember increased the completion of target fragments compared with instructions to forget (Experiment 1). Using the Process Dissociation Procedure (Jacoby, 1991), it appeared that instructions to remember increased the estimates of intentional influences of memory but did not affect the estimates of automatic uses of memory (Experiments 1, 2 and 3). This suggests that directed forgetting effects in word-fragment completion reflect the surreptitious influence of explicit memory in a nominally implicit memory task. However, a meta-analysis indicated that directed forgetting instructions affected automatic and intentional influences of memory in opposite directions. This finding casts doubt on the assumption of independence between automatic and intentional uses of memory. The implications for use of the pro...
Shouyuan Tian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
propofol and memory a study using a Process Dissociation Procedure and functional magnetic resonance imaging
Anaesthesia, 2013Co-Authors: Xiang Quan, Shouyuan Tian, Liang Zou, Yuguang HuangAbstract:Thirty volunteers randomly received either mild or deep propofol sedation, to assess its effect on explicit and implicit memory. Blood oxygen level-dependent functional magnetic resonance during sedation examined brain activation by auditory word stimulus and a Process Dissociation Procedure was performed 4 h after scanning. Explicit memory formation did not occur in either group. Implicit memories were formed during mild but not deep sedation (p = 0.04). Mild propofol sedation inhibited superior temporal gyrus activation (Z value 4.37, voxel 167). Deep propofol sedation inhibited superior temporal gyrus (Z value 4.25, voxel 351), middle temporal gyrus (Z value 4.39, voxel 351) and inferior parietal lobule (Z value 5.06, voxel 239) activation. Propofol only abolishes implicit memory during deep sedation. The superior temporal gyrus is associated with explicit memory Processing, while the formation of both implicit and explicit memories is associated with superior and middle temporal gyri and inferior parietal lobule activation.
-
effect of midazolam on memory a study of Process Dissociation Procedure and functional magnetic resonance imaging
Anaesthesia, 2010Co-Authors: Shouyuan Tian, Xiang Quan, Liang Zou, Y Zhang, Fushan XueAbstract:Summary To assess the effects of midazolam on explicit and implicit memories, 12 volunteers were randomly divided into the two groups: one with an Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3 (mild sedation) and one with a score of 1 (deep sedation). Blood oxygen-level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging was measured before and during an auditory stimulus, then with midazolam sedation, and then during a second auditory stimulus with continuous midazolam sedation. After 4 h, explicit and implicit memories were assessed. There was no evidence of explicit memory at the two levels of midazolam sedation. Implicit memory was retained at a mild level of midazolam sedation but absent at a deep level of midazolam sedation. At a mild level of midazolam sedation, activation of all brain areas by auditory stimulus (as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging) was uninhibited. However, a deep level of midazolam sedation depressed activation of the superior temporal gyrus by auditory stimulus. We conclude that midazolam does not abolish implicit memory at a mild sedation level, but can abolish both explicit and implicit memories at a deep sedation level. The superior temporal gyrus may be one of the target areas.