4.5 Article

fMRI correlates of retrieval orientation

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 44, 期 8, 页码 1425-1436

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.12.009

关键词

fMRI; retrieval orientation; episodic memory retrieval

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105579226] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U105579226] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Processes related to the cueing of memory retrieval were investigated using fMRI during a yes/no recognition memory test. Participants studied either pictures or auditory words and were subsequently tested with visual words that either corresponded to studied items (old items) or were unstudied (new items). It was expected that neural activity would differ according to the type of information participants are trying to retrieve: a manifestation of the so-called retrieval orientation effect. We replicated robust old/new effects in parietal, prefrontal and anterior medial temporal lobe cortices, which did not differ according to the study material. However, we did observe differential activity to test items in temporoparietal cortex and fusiform cortex as a function of the study material. More specifically, attempts to retrieve words encoded auditorily produced greater activity in auditory cortex than attempts to retrieve words encoded as pictures, whereas the converse was found in fusiform cortex. The above pattern was found for both new and old test items. These findings implicate these regions in constraining the search for specific types of encoded information and thus are in accordance with the transfer-appropriate processing framework. Further, we propose that our results can be seen as an extension of the cortical reinstatement hypothesis, in that the same material-specific cortical regions are engaged during both encoding and retrieval, and this increases the likelihood of successful recognition, or rejection, of retrieval cues in a memory test. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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