Literature DB >> 21838656

Recognition memory strength is predicted by pupillary responses at encoding while fixation patterns distinguish recollection from familiarity.

Alexandros Kafkas1, Daniela Montaldi.   

Abstract

Thirty-five healthy participants incidentally encoded a set of man-made and natural object pictures, while their pupil response and eye movements were recorded. At retrieval, studied and new stimuli were rated as novel, familiar (strong, moderate, or weak), or recollected. We found that both pupil response and fixation patterns at encoding predict later recognition memory strength. The extent of pupillary response accompanying incidental encoding was found to be predictive of subsequent memory. In addition, the number of fixations was also predictive of later recognition memory strength, suggesting that the accumulation of greater visual detail, even for single objects, is critical for the creation of a strong memory. Moreover, fixation patterns at encoding distinguished between recollection and familiarity at retrieval, with more dispersed fixations predicting familiarity and more clustered fixations predicting recollection. These data reveal close links between the autonomic control of pupil responses and eye movement patterns on the one hand and memory encoding on the other. Moreover, the data illustrate quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the incidental visual processing of stimuli, which are differentially predictive of the strength and the kind of memory experienced at recognition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21838656     DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2011.588335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  35 in total

1.  Memory strength and specificity revealed by pupillometry.

Authors:  Megan H Papesh; Stephen D Goldinger; Michael C Hout
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 2.997

Review 2.  Eye movements in Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert J Molitor; Philip C Ko; Brandon A Ally
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 4.472

Review 3.  A Closer Look at the Hippocampus and Memory.

Authors:  Joel L Voss; Donna J Bridge; Neal J Cohen; John A Walker
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  The spatial distribution of attention predicts familiarity strength during encoding and retrieval.

Authors:  Michelle M Ramey; John M Henderson; Andrew P Yonelinas
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2020-04-06

5.  Pupil Dilation Reflects the Creation and Retrieval of Memories.

Authors:  Stephen D Goldinger; Megan H Papesh
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-03-20

Review 6.  Getting directions from the hippocampus: The neural connection between looking and memory.

Authors:  Miriam L R Meister; Elizabeth A Buffalo
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 2.877

7.  Memory-related eye movements challenge behavioral measures of pattern completion and pattern separation.

Authors:  Robert J Molitor; Philip C Ko; Erin P Hussey; Brandon A Ally
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 3.899

8.  Conscious and unconscious memory differentially impact attention: Eye movements, visual search, and recognition processes.

Authors:  Michelle M Ramey; Andrew P Yonelinas; John M Henderson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-01-18

9.  A solid frame for the window on cognition: Modeling event-related pupil responses.

Authors:  Christoph W Korn; Dominik R Bach
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Visual Exploration at Higher Fixation Frequency Increases Subsequent Memory Recall.

Authors:  Bernhard Fehlmann; David Coynel; Nathalie Schicktanz; Annette Milnik; Leo Gschwind; Pascal Hofmann; Andreas Papassotiropoulos; Dominique J-F de Quervain
Journal:  Cereb Cortex Commun       Date:  2020-07-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.