↓ Skip to main content

ERP ‘old/new’ effects: memory strength and decisional factor(s)

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychologia, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
ERP ‘old/new’ effects: memory strength and decisional factor(s)
Published in
Neuropsychologia, January 2002
DOI 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00113-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Finnigan, Michael S Humphreys, Simon Dennis, Gina Geffen

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while subjects made old/new recognition judgments on new unstudied words and old words which had been presented at study either once ('weak') or three times ('strong'). The probability of an 'old' response was significantly higher for strong than weak words and significantly higher for weak than new words. Comparisons were made initially between ERPs to new, weak and strong words, and subsequently between ERPs associated with six strength-by-response conditions. The N400 component was found to be modulated by memory trace strength in a graded manner. Its amplitude was most negative in new word ERPs and most positive in strong word ERPs. This 'N400 strength effect' was largest at the left parietal electrode (in ear-referenced ERPs). The amplitude of the late positive complex (LPC) effect was sensitive to decision accuracy (and perhaps confidence). Its amplitude was larger in ERPs evoked by words attracting correct versus incorrect recognition decisions. The LPC effect had a left>right, centro-parietal scalp topography (in ear-referenced ERPs). Hence, whereas, the majority of previous ERP studies of episodic recognition have interpreted results from the perspective of dual-process models, we provide alternative interpretations of N400 and LPC old/new effects in terms of memory strength and decisional factor(s).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
United States 5 2%
Canada 4 2%
Germany 3 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 228 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 22%
Researcher 54 22%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 6%
Other 49 20%
Unknown 23 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 136 54%
Neuroscience 25 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Linguistics 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 38 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2011.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychologia
#1,721
of 4,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,445
of 130,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychologia
#20
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.