4.4 Article

Dissociating confidence and accuracy: Functional magnetic resonance imaging shows origins of the subjective memory experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 1131-1142

出版社

M I T PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/0898929041920568

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P01-AG-04953] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH60941] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [K23-NS02189] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Successful memory typically implies both objective accuracy and subjective confidence, but there are instances when confidence and accuracy diverge. This dissociation suggests that there may be distinct neural patterns of activation related to confidence and accuracy. We used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging to study the encoding of novel face-name associations, assessed with a postscan memory test that included objective measures of accuracy and subjective measures of confidence. We showed specific neural activity in the left inferior prefrontal cortex associated with trials when subjects expressed high confidence that they had chosen the correct name for the face and made a correct identification. Moreover, we found that this region was also associated with imparting high confidence when subjects chose the incorrect name. However, medial temporal lobe regions showed activity only for high-confidence correct trials. Many functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have shown that the medial temporal lobe and left prefrontal regions are particularly important for the successful formation of memories by using a combination of subjective and objective measures. Our findings suggest that these regions may be differentially involved in the objective and subjective components of memory and that the origins of confidence-accuracy dissociations may be related to incomplete activation of the neural pattern seen in successful encoding. These findings may also aid understanding of eyewitness misidentifications and memory distortions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据