Literature DB >> 20547169

Neural correlates of familiarity-based associative retrieval.

Jaclyn Hennessey Ford1, Mieke Verfaellie, Kelly S Giovanello.   

Abstract

The current study compared the neural correlates of associative retrieval of compound (unitized) stimuli and unrelated (non-unitized) stimuli. Although associative recognition was nearly identical for compounds and unrelated pairs, accurate recognition of these different pair types was associated with activation in distinct regions within the medial temporal lobe (MTL). Recognition of previously presented compound words was associated with left perirhinal activity, whereas recognition of unrelated word pairs was associated with activity in left hippocampus. These results provide evidence that perirhinal cortex mediates familiarity-based associative memory of stimuli unitized at encoding, while the hippocampus is required for recollection-based associative memory. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20547169      PMCID: PMC2915548          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  42 in total

1.  Conjoint recognition and phantom recollection.

Authors:  C J Brainerd; R Wright; V F Reyna; A H Mojardin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Recognition memory for faces: when familiarity supports associative recognition judgments.

Authors:  A P Yonelinas; N E Kroll; I G Dobbins; M Soltani
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-12

3.  Associative recognition: a case of recall-to-reject processing.

Authors:  C M Rotello; E Heit
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-09

4.  Simple and associative recognition memory in the hippocampal region.

Authors:  C E Stark; L R Squire
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.460

5.  Recognition memory for single items and for associations in amnesic patients.

Authors:  Patrizia Turriziani; Lucia Fadda; Carlo Caltagirone; Giovanni A Carlesimo
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  Multiple routes to memory: distinct medial temporal lobe processes build item and source memories.

Authors:  Lila Davachi; Jason P Mitchell; Anthony D Wagner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-02-10       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: a complementary-learning-systems approach.

Authors:  Kenneth A Norman; Randall C O'Reilly
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Disproportionate deficit in associative recognition relative to item recognition in global amnesia.

Authors:  Kelly Sullivan Giovanello; Mieke Verfaellie; Margaret M Keane
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Hippocampal damage equally impairs memory for single items and memory for conjunctions.

Authors:  Craig E L Stark; Larry R Squire
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.899

10.  Recognition memory for single items and for associations is similarly impaired following damage to the hippocampal region.

Authors:  Craig E L Stark; Peter J Bayley; Larry R Squire
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.460

View more
  13 in total

1.  Role of the left amygdala and right orbital frontal cortex in emotional interference resolution facilitation in working memory.

Authors:  Sara M Levens; Orrin Devinsky; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Semantic knowledge influences whether novel episodic associations are represented symmetrically or asymmetrically.

Authors:  Vencislav Popov; Qiong Zhang; Griffin E Koch; Regina C Calloway; Marc N Coutanche
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-11

3.  Recall versus familiarity when recall fails for words and scenes: the differential roles of the hippocampus, perirhinal cortex, and category-specific cortical regions.

Authors:  Anthony J Ryals; Anne M Cleary; Carol A Seger
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.252

4.  Phenotypic regional functional imaging patterns during memory encoding in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Browndyke; Kelly Giovanello; Jeffrey Petrella; Kathleen Hayden; Ornit Chiba-Falek; Karen A Tucker; James R Burke; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 21.566

Review 5.  Memory Retrieval in Mice and Men.

Authors:  Aya Ben-Yakov; Yadin Dudai; Mark R Mayford
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 10.005

6.  Event-related potentials during encoding: Comparing unitization to relational processing.

Authors:  Hsiao-Wei Tu; Emma E Alty; Rachel A Diana
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Neural correlates of temporal context retrieval for abstract scrambled phrases: Reducing narrative and familiarity-based strategies.

Authors:  Fang Wang; Rachel A Diana
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 3.252

8.  Electrophysiological Correlates of Familiarity and Recollection in Associative Recognition: Contributions of Perceptual and Conceptual Processing to Unitization.

Authors:  Bingcan Li; Xinrui Mao; Yujuan Wang; Chunyan Guo
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Opposing mechanisms support the voluntary forgetting of unwanted memories.

Authors:  Roland G Benoit; Michael C Anderson
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 17.173

10.  Medial temporal lobe contributions to intra-item associative recognition memory in the aging brain.

Authors:  Marshall Axel Dalton; Sicong Tu; Michael Hornberger; John Russel Hodges; Olivier Piguet
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 3.558

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.