A single-trace dual-process model of episodic memory: A novel computational account of familiarity and recollection
Dual‐process theories of episodic memory state that retrieval is contingent on two independent processes: familiarity (providing a sense of oldness) and recollection (recovering events and their context). A variety of studies have reported distinct neural signatures for familiarity and recollection,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Hippocampus 2010-02, Vol.20 (2), p.235-251 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Dual‐process theories of episodic memory state that retrieval is contingent on two independent processes: familiarity (providing a sense of oldness) and recollection (recovering events and their context). A variety of studies have reported distinct neural signatures for familiarity and recollection, supporting dual‐process theory. One outstanding question is whether these signatures reflect the activation of distinct memory traces or the operation of different retrieval mechanisms on a single memory trace. We present a computational model that uses a single neuronal network to store memory traces, but two distinct and independent retrieval processes access the memory. The model is capable of performing familiarity and recollection‐based discrimination between old and new patterns, demonstrating that dual‐process models need not to rely on multiple independent memory traces, but can use a single trace. Importantly, our putative familiarity and recollection processes exhibit distinct characteristics analogous to those found in empirical data; they diverge in capacity and sensitivity to sparse and correlated patterns, exhibit distinct ROC curves, and account for performance on both item and associative recognition tests. The demonstration that a single‐trace, dual‐process model can account for a range of empirical findings highlights the importance of distinguishing between neuronal processes and the neuronal representations on which they operate. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1050-9631 1098-1063 |
DOI: | 10.1002/hipo.20606 |