scholarly journals Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?

2009 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 638-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Mitchell ◽  
Marcia K. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Neural Mechanisms

Multidimensional source monitoring: Prior retrieval of one source attribute improves source memory for a second

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Dewitt ◽  
Justin B. Knight ◽  
B. Hunter Ball ◽  
Jason L. Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring

Metacognitive inferences in source memory judgements: The role of perceived differences in item recognition

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (7) ◽  
pp. 1015-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Meiser ◽  
Christine Sattler ◽  
Ulrich Von Hecker
Keyword(s):  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Item Recognition ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Source Information ◽  
Monitoring Model ◽  
Metacognitive Beliefs ◽  
Presentation Time ◽  
Different Sources

This research investigated the hypothesis that metacognitive inferences in source memory judgements are based on the recognition or nonrecognition of an event together with perceived or expected differences in the recognizability of events from different sources. The hypothesis was tested with a multinomial source-monitoring model that allowed separation of source-guessing tendencies for recognized and unrecognized items. Experiments 1A and 1B manipulated the number of item presentations as relevant source information and revealed differential guessing tendencies for recognized and unrecognized items, with a bias to attribute unrecognized items to the source associated with poor item recognition. Experiments 2A and 2B replicated the findings with a manipulation of presentation time and extended the analysis to subjective differences in item recognition. Experiments 3A and 3B used more natural source information by varying type of acoustic signal and demonstrated that subjective theories about differences in item recognition are sufficient to elicit differential source-guessing biases for recognized and unrecognized items. Together the findings provide new insights into the cognitive processes underlying source memory decisions, which involve episodic memory and reconstructive tendencies based on metacognitive beliefs and general world knowledge.

Source attributions for detected new items: Persistent evidence for schematic guessing

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 1407-1422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raoul Bell ◽  
Laura Mieth ◽  
Axel Buchner
Keyword(s):  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Matching Theory ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Probability Matching ◽  
Learning History ◽  
Specific Item ◽  
Apply Probability

Performance in source-monitoring tests is not only determined by source memory but also by source guessing. Source guessing is not random as it is informed by two distinct mechanisms. (1) People may show a schema-based guessing bias and rely on cross-situationally stable world knowledge. (2) They may apply probability matching and rely on the specific item-source contingency experienced at encoding. According to probability matching theory, source guessing is based on probability matching when a specific contingency representation is available. This conclusion is derived from a source-monitoring paradigm in which no source judgements for detected new items are required. Here, we extend this paradigm to examine source guessing not only for detected old items but also for detected new items. The results suggest that participants take the old–new recognition status of the items into account when making source attributions. Probability matching is used only for detected old items: Source guessing sensitively reflects the item-source contingency for these items. For detected new items, participants resort to schema-based guessing. Using schema-based guessing rather than probability matching when judging detected new items may have the advantage that a newly acquired contingency representation that may only be locally valid is not generalised too readily at the expense of a schematic expectation that reflects a larger and more comprehensive learning history.

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Source Monitoring

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Multiple Features ◽  
Neural Architecture ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Neuroimaging Techniques

Source monitoring is a metamemory function that includes processes for encoding and organizing the content of memories, and processes that selectively revive, cumulate, and evaluate that content in the service of making attributions about the origin of the information (e.g., perception vs imagination). Neuroimaging techniques, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), are encouraging rapid developments in understanding the neural mechanisms supporting source monitoring. This chapter reviews current findings, placing them in historical context. It highlights key issues of particular relevance, including: neural reinstatement—the match between brain activity at encoding and later remembering; the role of lateral parietal cortex in cumulating multiple features and attending to information during remembering; functional specificity of the prefrontal cortex with respect to cognitive control; and identifying functional networks that support source monitoring. Suggestions are made for clarifying the big picture and increasing the specificity of our understanding of source monitoring and its neural architecture.

Semantically Clustered Words Are Stored With Integrated Context

2009 ◽  
Vol 217 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arndt Bröder
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Storage And Retrieval ◽  
Contextual Features ◽  
Clustering Model ◽  
Retrieval Strategies

Source memory (i.e., memory for context) has been studied with recognition tasks almost exclusively. However, encoding context affects recall stronger than recognition, presumably because of more complex retrieval strategies in the former task. An extension of Batchelder and Riefer (1980) pair-clustering model is proposed which is intended to measure the storage and retrieval of clusterable word pairs as well as the memory for the sources in which these were presented. In two experiments, the construct validity of the central model parameters is demonstrated. Furthermore, there was a strong stochastic dependency between recalling the sources of the first and the second word of a clustered pair, respectively, suggesting that not only semantic but also contextual features are bound together in clustered pairs. Advantages of using recall tests in source monitoring research are discussed.

Measuring Source Memory

2007 ◽  
Vol 215 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arndt Bröder ◽  
Thorsten Meiser
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Memory Item ◽  
Item Memory ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Multinomial Models ◽  
Monitoring Process ◽  
Measurement Tools ◽  
Review Model

Abstract. The investigation of source monitoring (SM) as a special faculty of episodic memory has gained much attention in recent years. However, several measures of source memory have been used in research practice that show empirical and theoretical shortcomings: First, they often confound various cognitive processes like source memory, item memory and response bias, and second, they do not do justice to the multitude of processes involved in SM according to the framework of Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay (1993) . We therefore review model-based measurement approaches, focusing on multinomial models, and we distinguish between theorizing about source memory and the pragmatics of source memory measurement as two partly separate goals of research. Whereas signal detection models seem to be more adequate theories of the underlying source monitoring process, multinomial models have some pragmatic advantages that nevertheless recommend them as viable measurement tools.

Source monitoring deficits in hallucinating compared to non-hallucinating patients with schizophrenia

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Brunelin ◽  
Marion Combris ◽  
Emmanuel Poulet ◽  
Lassad Kallel ◽  
Thierry D’Amato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Auditory Hallucinations ◽  
Memory Tests ◽  
External Event ◽  
Internal Sources

AbstractIn two source memory tests, hallucinating patients with schizophrenia (N = 30), compared to non-hallucinating (N = 31), are impaired in recognizing internal self-generated items and misattribute them to an external event. They are not impaired in recognizing events from two internal sources. Results support a selective source-monitoring deficit in the occurrence of auditory hallucinations.

Inconsistency effects in source memory and compensatory schema-consistent guessing

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (10) ◽  
pp. 2042-2059 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viviane Küppers ◽  
Ute J. Bayen
Keyword(s):  
Source Memory ◽  
Source Monitoring ◽  
Memory Item ◽  
Item Memory ◽  
Multinomial Processing Tree Models ◽  
Multinomial Processing Tree ◽  
Tree Models ◽  
Separate Source

The attention–elaboration hypothesis of memory for schematically unexpected information predicts better source memory for unexpected than expected sources. In three source-monitoring experiments, the authors tested the occurrence of an inconsistency effect in source memory. Participants were presented with items that were schematically either very expected or very unexpected for their source. Multinomial processing tree models were used to separate source memory, item memory, and guessing bias. Results show an inconsistency effect in source memory accompanied by a compensatory schema-consistent guessing bias when expectancy strength is high, that is, when items are very expected or very unexpected for their source.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document