Pre-experimental Familiarization Increases Hippocampal Activity for Both Targets and Lures in Recognition Memory: An fMRI Study

In the present study, items pre-exposed in a familiarization series were included in a list discrimination task to manipulate memory strength. At test, participants were required to discriminate strong targets and strong lures from weak targets and new lures. This resulted in a concordant pattern of increased “old” responses to strong targets and lures. Model estimates attributed this pattern to either equivalent increases in memory strength across the two types of items (unequal variance signal detection model) or equivalent increases in both familiarity and recollection (dual process signal detection [DPSD] model). Hippocampal activity associated with strong targets and lures showed equivalent increases compared with missed items. This remained the case when analyses were restricted to high-confidence responses considered by the DPSD model to reflect predominantly recollection. A similar pattern of activity was observed in parahippocampal cortex for high-confidence responses. The present results are incompatible with “noncriterial” or “false” recollection being reflected solely in inflated DPSD familiarity estimates and support a positive correlation between hippocampal activity and memory strength irrespective of the accuracy of list discrimination, consistent with the unequal variance signal detection model account.

Right or Wrong, Familiar or Novel in Pictorial List Discrimination Learning

The interaction between nonassociative learning (presentation frequencies) and associative learning (reinforcement rates) in stimulus discrimination performance was investigated. Subjects were taught to discriminate lists of visual pattern pairs. When they chose the stimulus designated as right they were symbolically rewarded and when they chose the stimulus designated as wrong they were symbolically penalised. Subjects first learned one list and then another list. For a “right” group the pairs of the second list consisted of right stimuli from the first list and of novel wrong stimuli. For a “wrong” group it was the other way round. The right group transferred some discriminatory performance from the first to the second list while the control and wrong groups initially only performed near chance with the second list. When the first list involved wrong stimuli presented twice as frequently as right stimuli, the wrong group exhibited a better transfer than the right group. In a final experiment subjects learned lists which consisted of frequent right stimuli paired with scarce wrong stimuli and frequent wrong stimuli paired with scarce right stimuli. In later test trials these stimuli were shown in new combinations and additionally combined with novel stimuli. Subjects preferred to choose the most rewarded stimuli and to avoid the most penalised stimuli when the test pairs included at least one frequent stimulus. With scarce/scarce or scarce/novel stimulus combinations they performed less well or even chose randomly. A simple mathematical model that ascribes stimulus choices to a Cartesian combination of stimulus frequency and stimulus value succeeds in matching all these results with satisfactory precision.