4.3 Review

Components of Recognition Memory: Dissociable Cognitive Processes or Just Differences in Representational Complexity?

Journal

HIPPOCAMPUS
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages 1245-1262

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/hipo.20865

Keywords

recognition memory; stimulus representations; modular; visual perception; perirhinal cortex

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many current theoretical views within the literature on recognition memory-a representative sample of which is provided by the present special issue-advocate the dissociation of recognition memory into two cognitive processes: familiarity-based recognition, and recollection/recall. Furthermore, these processes are proposed to be mediated by distinct and dissociable anatomical regions, usually the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus, respectively. In this article, we describe a representational-hierarchical view that provides an account of cognition, including mnemonic and perceptual processing, within a brain pathway we term the ventral visual-perirhinal-hippocampal stream. According to this view cognition, perception, memory, and indeed amnesia may be understood by considering the content and organization of stimulus representations in the brain. Taking this view leads us to question the idea of cognitive modules for introspectively derived notions such as familiarity and recollection. We begin by reviewing the representational-hierarchical framework, explain how it has been used to account for object recognition memory in perirhinal cortex, and review the rationale for extending this framework to the hippocampus. We then discuss whether the principles of the representational-hierarchical framework can be used to understand recollection and familiarity in terms of stimulus complexity, and use these principles to reconsider some of the evidence for neuroanatomical, dual-process models of recognition memory. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available