scholarly journals Simple and Associative Recognition Memory in the Hippocampal Region

2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 190-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. E.L. Stark
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Associative Recognition ◽  
Hippocampal Region

scholarly journals Human Hippocampal and Parahippocampal Activity during Visual Associative Recognition Memory for Spatial and Nonspatial Stimulus Configurations

2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (28) ◽  
pp. 9439-9444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emrah Düzel ◽  
Reza Habib ◽  
Michael Rotte ◽  
Sebastian Guderian ◽  
Endel Tulving ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Associative Recognition

scholarly journals Long-term associative memory in rats: effects of familiarization period in object-place-context recognition test

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shota Shimoda ◽  
Takaaki Ozawa ◽  
Yukio Ichitani ◽  
Kazuo Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Associative Memory ◽  
Associative Recognition ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Novelty Preference ◽  
Object Recognition Test ◽  
Spontaneous Recognition ◽  
Familiarization Period

AbstractSpontaneous recognition tests, which utilize rodents’ innate tendency to explore novelty, can evaluate not only simple non-associative recognition memory but also more complex associative memory in animals. In the present study, we investigated whether the length of the object familiarization period (sample phase) improved subsequent novelty discrimination in the spontaneous object, place, and object-place-context (OPC) recognition tests in rats. In the OPC test, rats showed a significant novelty preference only when the familiarization period was 30 min but not when it was 5 min or 15 min. However, the rats exhibited a successful discrimination between the stayed and replaced objects under 15 min and 30 min familiarization period conditions in the place recognition test and between the novel and familiar objects under all conditions of 5, 15 and 30 min in the object recognition test. Our results suggest that the extension of the familiarization period improves performance in the spontaneous recognition paradigms, and a longer familiarization period is necessary for long-term associative recognition memory than for non-associative memory.

scholarly journals The contribution of familiarity to within- and between-domain associative recognition memory: Use of a modified remember/know procedure

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 922-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Bastin ◽  
Martial van der Linden ◽  
Caroline Schnakers ◽  
Daniela Montaldi ◽  
Andrew R. Mayes
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Associative Recognition

scholarly journals Patterns of single-neuron activity during associative recognition memory in the human medial temporal lobe

NeuroImage ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 221 ◽  
pp. 117214
Author(s):  
M. Derner ◽  
G. Dehnen ◽  
L. Chaieb ◽  
T.P. Reber ◽  
V. Borger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Temporal Lobe ◽  
Medial Temporal Lobe ◽  
Single Neuron ◽  
Associative Recognition ◽  
Neuron Activity ◽  
Single Neuron Activity

scholarly journals Is a novel conceptual unit more than the sum of its parts?: FMRI evidence from an associative recognition memory study

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 123-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regine Bader ◽  
Bertram Opitz ◽  
Wolfgang Reith ◽  
Axel Mecklinger
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Associative Recognition

scholarly journals Sources of interference in item and associative recognition memory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam F Osth ◽  
Simon Dennis
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Associative Recognition ◽  
Small Contribution ◽  
Memory Strength ◽  
Interference Contribution ◽  
List Strength ◽  
Stimulus Classes ◽  
Context Cues

A powerful theoretical framework for exploring recognition memory is the global matchingframework, in which a cue’s memory strength reflects the similarity of the retrieval cuesbeing matched against the contents of memory simultaneously. Contributions at retrievalcan be categorized as matches and mismatches to the item and context cues, including theself match (match on item and context), item noise (match on context, mismatch on item),context noise (match on item, mismatch on context), and background noise (mismatch onitem and context). We present a model that directly parameterizes the matches andmismatches to the item and context cues, which enables estimation of the magnitude ofeach interference contribution (item noise, context noise, and background noise). Themodel was fit within a hierarchical Bayesian framework to ten recognition memory datasetsthat employ manipulations of strength, list length, list strength, word frequency, study-testdelay, and stimulus class in item and associative recognition. Estimates of the modelparameters revealed at most a small contribution of item noise that varies by stimulusclass, with virtually no item noise for single words and scenes. Despite the unpopularity ofbackground noise in recognition memory models, background noise estimates dominated atretrieval across nearly all stimulus classes with the exception of high frequency words,which exhibited equivalent levels of context noise and background noise. These parameterestimates suggest that the majority of interference in recognition memory stems fromexperiences acquired prior to the learning episode.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document