| |
Abstract:
Abstract: To investigate the possibility of an
electrophysiological correlate of false-recognition, participants
were presented with 12 modified Deese/Roedigar and McDermott (D/RM)
lists. The studied items were presented visually for 1500 ms. The
test items were also presented visually, and included presented
items, new items and critical lure items which included the
standard critical lure (CL) items as well as the top semantic
associate in the original Roedigar and McDermott (1995) lists. ERP
recordings were taken from 16 participants at sites FZ, CZ, and PZ.
Behavioral results showed a false-recognition effect with an
average false alarm rate of .495 for CL items. ERP results show a
significant increase in positivity for falsely recognized CL items
relative to correctly recognized items, between 500 and 600 ms
after stimulus onset. These results provide preliminary evidence
for a physiological measure of false-recognition. Johnson et al.
(1997) reported no difference in ERP's for false versus true
recognition in a standard D/RM paradigm. However, their study phase
was auditory but their test items were presented visually. This
modality switch may have confounded their ERP results. A perceptual
matching explanation is offered as a possible way to explain the
different ERP results that we obtained.
|
