The Experts below are selected from a list of 279 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Elisabetta Làdavas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
When True Memory availability promotes false Memory: Evidence from confabulating patients
Neuropsychologia, 2006Co-Authors: Elisa Ciaramelli, Massimo Frattarelli, Simona Ghetti, Elisabetta LàdavasAbstract:We explored the extent to which confabulators are susceptible to false recall and false recognition, and whether false recognition is reduced when Memory for studied items is experimentally enhanced. Five confabulating patients, nine non-confabulating amnesics - including patients with (F amnesics) and without frontal-lobe dysfunction (NF amnesics) - and 14 control subjects underwent the DRM paradigm [Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803-814.] in two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants studied eight lists of semantic associates, and free recall was tested after the presentation of each list. In the Standard condition recognition was tested after the presentation of all the lists, whereas in the Proximal condition patients were administered a six-item recognition task after the presentation of each list. Participants also provided remember or know judgements, and described the content of their recollections. All groups of patients recalled a lower proportion of targets and critical lures than did control subjects, but confabulators recalled more words unrelated to the studied lists than did NF amnesics and controls. All groups of participants improved True recognition across conditions. However, whereas normal controls suppressed false recognition to critical lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, and non-confabulating amnesics showed comparable gist-based false recognition, confabulators showed increased levels of false recognition to critical lures across conditions. Furthermore, NF amnesics significantly reduced false recognition to unrelated lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, whereas confabulators were unable to suppress false recognition to unrelated lures across conditions. Analysis of the phenomenological experience showed that, unlike non-confabulating amnesics, confabulators characterized True and false memories with irrelevant information related to test items. Results are interpreted in light of confabulators' monitoring deficits. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
when True Memory availability promotes false Memory evidence from confabulating patients
Neuropsychologia, 2006Co-Authors: Elisa Ciaramelli, Massimo Frattarelli, Simona Ghetti, Elisabetta LàdavasAbstract:We explored the extent to which confabulators are susceptible to false recall and false recognition, and whether false recognition is reduced when Memory for studied items is experimentally enhanced. Five confabulating patients, nine non-confabulating amnesics – including patients with (F amnesics) and without frontal-lobe dysfunction (NF amnesics) – and 14 control subjects underwent the DRM paradigm [Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803–814.] in two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants studied eight lists of semantic associates, and free recall was tested after the presentation of each list. In the Standard condition recognition was tested after the presentation of all the lists, whereas in the Proximal condition patients were administered a six-item recognition task after the presentation of each list. Participants also provided remember or know judgements, and described the content of their recollections. All groups of patients recalled a lower proportion of targets and critical lures than did control subjects, but confabulators recalled more words unrelated to the studied lists than did NF amnesics and controls. All groups of participants improved True recognition across conditions. However, whereas normal controls suppressed false recognition to critical lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, and non-confabulating amnesics showed comparable gist-based false recognition, confabulators showed increased levels of false recognition to critical lures across conditions. Furthermore, NF amnesics significantly reduced false recognition to unrelated lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, whereas confabulators were unable to suppress false recognition to unrelated lures across conditions. Analysis of the phenomenological experience showed that, unlike non-confabulating amnesics, confabulators characterized True and false memories with irrelevant information related to test items. Results are interpreted in light of confabulators’ monitoring deficits.
Simona Ghetti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
semantic processes leading to True and false Memory formation in schizophrenia
Schizophrenia Research, 2013Co-Authors: Pedro M Pazalonso, Simona Ghetti, Ian S Ramsay, Marjorie Solomon, Jong H Yoon, Cameron S Carter, Daniel J RaglandAbstract:Abstract Encoding semantic relationships between items on word lists (semantic processing) enhances True memories, but also increases Memory distortions. Episodic Memory impairments in schizophrenia (SZ) are strongly driven by failures to process semantic relations, but the exact nature of these relational semantic processing deficits is not well understood. Here, we used a false Memory paradigm to investigate the impact of implicit and explicit semantic processing manipulations on episodic Memory in SZ. Thirty SZ and 30 demographically matched healthy controls (HC) studied Deese/Roediger–McDermott (DRM) lists of semantically associated words. Half of the lists had strong implicit semantic associations and the remainder had low strength associations. Similarly, half of the lists were presented under “standard” instructions and the other half under explicit “relational processing” instructions. After study, participants performed recall and old/new recognition tests composed of targets, critical lures, and unrelated lures. HC exhibited higher True memories and better discriminability between True and false Memory compared to SZ. High, versus low, associative strength increased false Memory rates in both groups. However, explicit “relational processing” instructions positively improved True Memory rates only in HC. Finally, True and false Memory rates were associated with severity of disorganized and negative symptoms in SZ. These results suggest that reduced processing of semantic relationships during encoding in SZ may stem from an inability to implement explicit relational processing strategies rather than a fundamental deficit in the implicit activation and retrieval of word meanings from patients' semantic lexicon.
-
When True Memory availability promotes false Memory: Evidence from confabulating patients
Neuropsychologia, 2006Co-Authors: Elisa Ciaramelli, Massimo Frattarelli, Simona Ghetti, Elisabetta LàdavasAbstract:We explored the extent to which confabulators are susceptible to false recall and false recognition, and whether false recognition is reduced when Memory for studied items is experimentally enhanced. Five confabulating patients, nine non-confabulating amnesics - including patients with (F amnesics) and without frontal-lobe dysfunction (NF amnesics) - and 14 control subjects underwent the DRM paradigm [Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803-814.] in two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants studied eight lists of semantic associates, and free recall was tested after the presentation of each list. In the Standard condition recognition was tested after the presentation of all the lists, whereas in the Proximal condition patients were administered a six-item recognition task after the presentation of each list. Participants also provided remember or know judgements, and described the content of their recollections. All groups of patients recalled a lower proportion of targets and critical lures than did control subjects, but confabulators recalled more words unrelated to the studied lists than did NF amnesics and controls. All groups of participants improved True recognition across conditions. However, whereas normal controls suppressed false recognition to critical lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, and non-confabulating amnesics showed comparable gist-based false recognition, confabulators showed increased levels of false recognition to critical lures across conditions. Furthermore, NF amnesics significantly reduced false recognition to unrelated lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, whereas confabulators were unable to suppress false recognition to unrelated lures across conditions. Analysis of the phenomenological experience showed that, unlike non-confabulating amnesics, confabulators characterized True and false memories with irrelevant information related to test items. Results are interpreted in light of confabulators' monitoring deficits. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
when True Memory availability promotes false Memory evidence from confabulating patients
Neuropsychologia, 2006Co-Authors: Elisa Ciaramelli, Massimo Frattarelli, Simona Ghetti, Elisabetta LàdavasAbstract:We explored the extent to which confabulators are susceptible to false recall and false recognition, and whether false recognition is reduced when Memory for studied items is experimentally enhanced. Five confabulating patients, nine non-confabulating amnesics – including patients with (F amnesics) and without frontal-lobe dysfunction (NF amnesics) – and 14 control subjects underwent the DRM paradigm [Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803–814.] in two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants studied eight lists of semantic associates, and free recall was tested after the presentation of each list. In the Standard condition recognition was tested after the presentation of all the lists, whereas in the Proximal condition patients were administered a six-item recognition task after the presentation of each list. Participants also provided remember or know judgements, and described the content of their recollections. All groups of patients recalled a lower proportion of targets and critical lures than did control subjects, but confabulators recalled more words unrelated to the studied lists than did NF amnesics and controls. All groups of participants improved True recognition across conditions. However, whereas normal controls suppressed false recognition to critical lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, and non-confabulating amnesics showed comparable gist-based false recognition, confabulators showed increased levels of false recognition to critical lures across conditions. Furthermore, NF amnesics significantly reduced false recognition to unrelated lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, whereas confabulators were unable to suppress false recognition to unrelated lures across conditions. Analysis of the phenomenological experience showed that, unlike non-confabulating amnesics, confabulators characterized True and false memories with irrelevant information related to test items. Results are interpreted in light of confabulators’ monitoring deficits.
Elisa Ciaramelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
When True Memory availability promotes false Memory: Evidence from confabulating patients
Neuropsychologia, 2006Co-Authors: Elisa Ciaramelli, Massimo Frattarelli, Simona Ghetti, Elisabetta LàdavasAbstract:We explored the extent to which confabulators are susceptible to false recall and false recognition, and whether false recognition is reduced when Memory for studied items is experimentally enhanced. Five confabulating patients, nine non-confabulating amnesics - including patients with (F amnesics) and without frontal-lobe dysfunction (NF amnesics) - and 14 control subjects underwent the DRM paradigm [Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803-814.] in two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants studied eight lists of semantic associates, and free recall was tested after the presentation of each list. In the Standard condition recognition was tested after the presentation of all the lists, whereas in the Proximal condition patients were administered a six-item recognition task after the presentation of each list. Participants also provided remember or know judgements, and described the content of their recollections. All groups of patients recalled a lower proportion of targets and critical lures than did control subjects, but confabulators recalled more words unrelated to the studied lists than did NF amnesics and controls. All groups of participants improved True recognition across conditions. However, whereas normal controls suppressed false recognition to critical lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, and non-confabulating amnesics showed comparable gist-based false recognition, confabulators showed increased levels of false recognition to critical lures across conditions. Furthermore, NF amnesics significantly reduced false recognition to unrelated lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, whereas confabulators were unable to suppress false recognition to unrelated lures across conditions. Analysis of the phenomenological experience showed that, unlike non-confabulating amnesics, confabulators characterized True and false memories with irrelevant information related to test items. Results are interpreted in light of confabulators' monitoring deficits. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
when True Memory availability promotes false Memory evidence from confabulating patients
Neuropsychologia, 2006Co-Authors: Elisa Ciaramelli, Massimo Frattarelli, Simona Ghetti, Elisabetta LàdavasAbstract:We explored the extent to which confabulators are susceptible to false recall and false recognition, and whether false recognition is reduced when Memory for studied items is experimentally enhanced. Five confabulating patients, nine non-confabulating amnesics – including patients with (F amnesics) and without frontal-lobe dysfunction (NF amnesics) – and 14 control subjects underwent the DRM paradigm [Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803–814.] in two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants studied eight lists of semantic associates, and free recall was tested after the presentation of each list. In the Standard condition recognition was tested after the presentation of all the lists, whereas in the Proximal condition patients were administered a six-item recognition task after the presentation of each list. Participants also provided remember or know judgements, and described the content of their recollections. All groups of patients recalled a lower proportion of targets and critical lures than did control subjects, but confabulators recalled more words unrelated to the studied lists than did NF amnesics and controls. All groups of participants improved True recognition across conditions. However, whereas normal controls suppressed false recognition to critical lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, and non-confabulating amnesics showed comparable gist-based false recognition, confabulators showed increased levels of false recognition to critical lures across conditions. Furthermore, NF amnesics significantly reduced false recognition to unrelated lures in the Proximal compared to the Standard condition, whereas confabulators were unable to suppress false recognition to unrelated lures across conditions. Analysis of the phenomenological experience showed that, unlike non-confabulating amnesics, confabulators characterized True and false memories with irrelevant information related to test items. Results are interpreted in light of confabulators’ monitoring deficits.
Jeffery N Talbot - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
brief pre learning stress reduces false Memory production and enhances True Memory selectively in females
Physiology & Behavior, 2014Co-Authors: Phillip R Zoladz, David M Peters, Andrea E Kalchik, Mackenzie M Hoffman, Rachael L Aufdenkampe, Sarah A Woelke, Nicholas E Wolters, Jeffery N TalbotAbstract:Abstract Some of the previous research on stress–Memory interactions has suggested that stress increases the production of false memories. However, as accumulating work has shown that the effects of stress on learning and Memory depend critically on the timing of the stressor, we hypothesized that brief stress administered immediately before learning would reduce, rather than increase, false Memory production. In the present study, participants submerged their dominant hand in a bath of ice cold water (stress) or sat quietly (no stress) for 3 min. Then, participants completed a short-term Memory task, the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm, in which they were presented with 10 different lists of semantically related words (e.g., candy, sour, sugar) and, after each list, were tested for their Memory of presented words (e.g., candy), non-presented unrelated “distractor” words (e.g., hat), and non-presented semantically related “critical lure” words (e.g., sweet). Stress, overall, significantly reduced the number of critical lures recalled (i.e., false Memory) by participants. In addition, stress enhanced Memory for the presented words (i.e., True Memory) in female, but not male, participants. These findings reveal that stress does not unequivocally enhance false Memory production and that the timing of the stressor is an important variable that could mediate such effects. Such results could have important implications for understanding the dependability of eyewitness accounts of events that are observed following stress.
Scott D Slotnick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
false Memory for context and True Memory for context similarly activate the parahippocampal cortex
Cortex, 2017Co-Authors: Jessica M Karanian, Scott D SlotnickAbstract:The role of the parahippocampal cortex is currently a topic of debate. One view posits that the parahippocampal cortex specifically processes spatial layouts and sensory details (i.e., the visual-spatial processing view). In contrast, the other view posits that the parahippocampal cortex more generally processes spatial and non-spatial contexts (i.e., the general contextual processing view). A large number of studies have found that True memories activate the parahippocampal cortex to a greater degree than false memories, which would appear to support the visual-spatial processing view as True memories are typically associated with greater visual-spatial detail than false memories. However, in previous studies, contextual details were also greater for True memories than false memories. Thus, such differential activity in the parahippocampal cortex may have reflected differences in contextual processing, which would challenge the visual-spatial processing view. In the present functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we employed a source Memory paradigm to investigate the functional role of the parahippocampal cortex during True Memory and false Memory for contextual information to distinguish between the visual-spatial processing view and the general contextual processing view. During encoding, abstract shapes were presented to the left or right of fixation. During retrieval, old shapes were presented at fixation and participants indicated whether each shape was previously on the “left” or “right” followed by an “unsure”, “sure”, or “very sure” confidence rating. The conjunction of confident True memories for context and confident false memories for context produced activity in the parahippocampal cortex, which indicates that this region is associated with contextual processing. Furthermore, the direct contrast of True Memory and false Memory produced activity in the visual cortex but did not produce activity in the parahippocampal cortex. The present evidence suggests that the parahippocampal cortex is associated with general contextual processing rather than only being associated with visual-spatial processing.
-
False Memory for context activates the parahippocampal cortex
Cognitive Neuroscience, 2014Co-Authors: Jessica M Karanian, Scott D SlotnickAbstract:Previous studies have reported greater activity in the parahippocampal cortex during True Memory than false Memory, which has been interpreted as reflecting greater sensory processing during True Memory. However, in these studies, sensory detail and contextual information were confounded. In the present fMRI study, we employed a novel paradigm to dissociate these factors. During encoding, abstract shapes were presented in one of two contexts (i.e., moving or stationary). During retrieval, participants classified shapes as previously “moving” or “stationary.” Critically, contextual processing was relatively greater during false Memory (“moving” responses to stationary items), while sensory processing was relatively greater during True Memory (“moving” responses to moving items). Within the medial temporal lobe, false Memory versus True Memory produced greater activity in the parahippocampal cortex, whereas True Memory versus false Memory produced greater activity in the hippocampus. The present results ind...
-
the cortical basis of True Memory and false Memory for motion
Neuropsychologia, 2014Co-Authors: Jessica M Karanian, Scott D SlotnickAbstract:Behavioral evidence indicates that false Memory, like True Memory, can be rich in sensory detail. By contrast, there is fMRI evidence that True Memory for visual information produces greater activity in earlier visual regions than false Memory, which suggests True Memory is associated with greater sensory detail. However, false Memory in previous fMRI paradigms may have lacked sufficient sensory detail to recruit earlier visual processing regions. To investigate this possibility in the present fMRI study, we employed a paradigm that produced feature-specific false Memory with a high degree of visual detail. During the encoding phase, moving or stationary abstract shapes were presented to the left or right of fixation. During the retrieval phase, shapes from encoding were presented at fixation and participants classified each item as previously “moving” or “stationary” within each visual field. Consistent with previous fMRI findings, True Memory but not false Memory for motion activated motion processing region MTþ, while both True Memory and false Memory activated later cortical processing regions. In addition, false Memory but not True Memory for motion activated language processing regions. The present findings indicate that True Memory activates earlier visual regions to a greater degree than false Memory, even under conditions of detailed retrieval. Thus, the dissociation between previous behavioral findings and fMRI findings do not appear to be task dependent. Future work will be needed to assess whether the same pattern of True Memory and false Memory activity is observed for different sensory modalities.