The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research

To account for dissociations observed in recognition memory tests, several dual-process models have been proposed that assume that recognition judgments can be based on the recollection of details about previous events or on the assessment of stimulus familiarity. In the current article, these model...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of memory and language 2002-04, Vol.46 (3), p.441-517
1. Verfasser: Yonelinas, Andrew P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 517
container_issue 3
container_start_page 441
container_title Journal of memory and language
container_volume 46
creator Yonelinas, Andrew P
description To account for dissociations observed in recognition memory tests, several dual-process models have been proposed that assume that recognition judgments can be based on the recollection of details about previous events or on the assessment of stimulus familiarity. In the current article, these models are examined, along with the methods that have been developed to measure recollection and familiarity. The relevant empirical literature from behavioral, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging studies is then reviewed in order to assess model predictions. Results from a variety of measurement methods, including task-dissociation and process-estimation methods, are found to lead to remarkably consistent conclusions about the nature of recollection and familiarity, particularly when ceiling effects are avoided. For example, recollection is found to be more sensitive than familiarity to response speeding, division of attention, generation, semantic encoding, the effects of aging, and the amnestic effects of benzodiazepines, but it is less sensitive than familiarity to shifts in response criterion, fluency manipulations, forgetting over short retention intervals, and some perceptual manipulations. Moreover, neuropsychological and neuroimaging results indicate that the two processes rely on partially distinct neural substrates and provide support for models that assume that recollection relies on the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, whereas familiarity relies on regions surrounding the hippocampus. Double dissociations produced by experimental manipulations at time of test indicate that the two processes are independent at retrieval, and single dissociations produced by study manipulations indicate that they are partially independent during encoding. Recollection is similar but not identical to free recall, whereas familiarity is similar to conceptual implicit memory, but is dissociable from perceptual implicit memory. Finally, the results indicate that recollection reflects a thresholdlike retrieval process that supports novel learning, whereas familiarity reflects a signal-detection process that can support novel learning only under certain conditions. The results verify a number of model predictions and prove useful in resolving several theoretical disagreements.
doi_str_mv 10.1006/jmla.2002.2864
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85558963</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0749596X02928640</els_id><sourcerecordid>85558963</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-d0ad0ec2c6b9055cc814fbca27d9745d898a5d12641689dcef86e3283bf1857c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1Lw0AQxRdRsFavnnPRW-LuJrvZeCvFqlAUpIKelu3shG7JR91Nlf73JqTgydMMzHtvZn6EXDOaMErl3bauTMIp5QlXMjshE0YLGVPF2SmZ0DwrYlHIj3NyEcKWUsZEzidkudpg9GK6vceoLaM3hLaqEDrXNpFpbLQwtauc8a473Eezfv7t8GdQpjT6ROPD6Ap9C5tLclaaKuDVsU7J--JhNX-Kl6-Pz_PZMoaMpV1sqbEUgYNcF1QIAMWycg2G57bIM2FVoYywjMuMSVVYwFJJTLlK1yVTIod0Sm7H3J1vv_YYOl27AFhVpsF2H7QSQqhCpr0wGYXg2xA8lnrnXW38QTOqB2h6gKYHaHqA1htujskmgKlKbxpw4c-Vylyp_pIpUaMO-zd7JF4HcNgAWud7etq27r8Vv0dqft8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>85558963</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Yonelinas, Andrew P</creator><creatorcontrib>Yonelinas, Andrew P</creatorcontrib><description>To account for dissociations observed in recognition memory tests, several dual-process models have been proposed that assume that recognition judgments can be based on the recollection of details about previous events or on the assessment of stimulus familiarity. In the current article, these models are examined, along with the methods that have been developed to measure recollection and familiarity. The relevant empirical literature from behavioral, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging studies is then reviewed in order to assess model predictions. Results from a variety of measurement methods, including task-dissociation and process-estimation methods, are found to lead to remarkably consistent conclusions about the nature of recollection and familiarity, particularly when ceiling effects are avoided. For example, recollection is found to be more sensitive than familiarity to response speeding, division of attention, generation, semantic encoding, the effects of aging, and the amnestic effects of benzodiazepines, but it is less sensitive than familiarity to shifts in response criterion, fluency manipulations, forgetting over short retention intervals, and some perceptual manipulations. Moreover, neuropsychological and neuroimaging results indicate that the two processes rely on partially distinct neural substrates and provide support for models that assume that recollection relies on the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, whereas familiarity relies on regions surrounding the hippocampus. Double dissociations produced by experimental manipulations at time of test indicate that the two processes are independent at retrieval, and single dissociations produced by study manipulations indicate that they are partially independent during encoding. Recollection is similar but not identical to free recall, whereas familiarity is similar to conceptual implicit memory, but is dissociable from perceptual implicit memory. Finally, the results indicate that recollection reflects a thresholdlike retrieval process that supports novel learning, whereas familiarity reflects a signal-detection process that can support novel learning only under certain conditions. The results verify a number of model predictions and prove useful in resolving several theoretical disagreements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0821</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2002.2864</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMLAE6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Learning. Memory ; Memory ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><ispartof>Journal of memory and language, 2002-04, Vol.46 (3), p.441-517</ispartof><rights>2002</rights><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-d0ad0ec2c6b9055cc814fbca27d9745d898a5d12641689dcef86e3283bf1857c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-d0ad0ec2c6b9055cc814fbca27d9745d898a5d12641689dcef86e3283bf1857c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=13678828$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yonelinas, Andrew P</creatorcontrib><title>The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research</title><title>Journal of memory and language</title><description>To account for dissociations observed in recognition memory tests, several dual-process models have been proposed that assume that recognition judgments can be based on the recollection of details about previous events or on the assessment of stimulus familiarity. In the current article, these models are examined, along with the methods that have been developed to measure recollection and familiarity. The relevant empirical literature from behavioral, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging studies is then reviewed in order to assess model predictions. Results from a variety of measurement methods, including task-dissociation and process-estimation methods, are found to lead to remarkably consistent conclusions about the nature of recollection and familiarity, particularly when ceiling effects are avoided. For example, recollection is found to be more sensitive than familiarity to response speeding, division of attention, generation, semantic encoding, the effects of aging, and the amnestic effects of benzodiazepines, but it is less sensitive than familiarity to shifts in response criterion, fluency manipulations, forgetting over short retention intervals, and some perceptual manipulations. Moreover, neuropsychological and neuroimaging results indicate that the two processes rely on partially distinct neural substrates and provide support for models that assume that recollection relies on the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, whereas familiarity relies on regions surrounding the hippocampus. Double dissociations produced by experimental manipulations at time of test indicate that the two processes are independent at retrieval, and single dissociations produced by study manipulations indicate that they are partially independent during encoding. Recollection is similar but not identical to free recall, whereas familiarity is similar to conceptual implicit memory, but is dissociable from perceptual implicit memory. Finally, the results indicate that recollection reflects a thresholdlike retrieval process that supports novel learning, whereas familiarity reflects a signal-detection process that can support novel learning only under certain conditions. The results verify a number of model predictions and prove useful in resolving several theoretical disagreements.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Learning. Memory</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><issn>0749-596X</issn><issn>1096-0821</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM1Lw0AQxRdRsFavnnPRW-LuJrvZeCvFqlAUpIKelu3shG7JR91Nlf73JqTgydMMzHtvZn6EXDOaMErl3bauTMIp5QlXMjshE0YLGVPF2SmZ0DwrYlHIj3NyEcKWUsZEzidkudpg9GK6vceoLaM3hLaqEDrXNpFpbLQwtauc8a473Eezfv7t8GdQpjT6ROPD6Ap9C5tLclaaKuDVsU7J--JhNX-Kl6-Pz_PZMoaMpV1sqbEUgYNcF1QIAMWycg2G57bIM2FVoYywjMuMSVVYwFJJTLlK1yVTIod0Sm7H3J1vv_YYOl27AFhVpsF2H7QSQqhCpr0wGYXg2xA8lnrnXW38QTOqB2h6gKYHaHqA1htujskmgKlKbxpw4c-Vylyp_pIpUaMO-zd7JF4HcNgAWud7etq27r8Vv0dqft8</recordid><startdate>20020401</startdate><enddate>20020401</enddate><creator>Yonelinas, Andrew P</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020401</creationdate><title>The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research</title><author>Yonelinas, Andrew P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-d0ad0ec2c6b9055cc814fbca27d9745d898a5d12641689dcef86e3283bf1857c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Learning. Memory</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yonelinas, Andrew P</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yonelinas, Andrew P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research</atitle><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle><date>2002-04-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>441</spage><epage>517</epage><pages>441-517</pages><issn>0749-596X</issn><eissn>1096-0821</eissn><coden>JMLAE6</coden><abstract>To account for dissociations observed in recognition memory tests, several dual-process models have been proposed that assume that recognition judgments can be based on the recollection of details about previous events or on the assessment of stimulus familiarity. In the current article, these models are examined, along with the methods that have been developed to measure recollection and familiarity. The relevant empirical literature from behavioral, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging studies is then reviewed in order to assess model predictions. Results from a variety of measurement methods, including task-dissociation and process-estimation methods, are found to lead to remarkably consistent conclusions about the nature of recollection and familiarity, particularly when ceiling effects are avoided. For example, recollection is found to be more sensitive than familiarity to response speeding, division of attention, generation, semantic encoding, the effects of aging, and the amnestic effects of benzodiazepines, but it is less sensitive than familiarity to shifts in response criterion, fluency manipulations, forgetting over short retention intervals, and some perceptual manipulations. Moreover, neuropsychological and neuroimaging results indicate that the two processes rely on partially distinct neural substrates and provide support for models that assume that recollection relies on the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, whereas familiarity relies on regions surrounding the hippocampus. Double dissociations produced by experimental manipulations at time of test indicate that the two processes are independent at retrieval, and single dissociations produced by study manipulations indicate that they are partially independent during encoding. Recollection is similar but not identical to free recall, whereas familiarity is similar to conceptual implicit memory, but is dissociable from perceptual implicit memory. Finally, the results indicate that recollection reflects a thresholdlike retrieval process that supports novel learning, whereas familiarity reflects a signal-detection process that can support novel learning only under certain conditions. The results verify a number of model predictions and prove useful in resolving several theoretical disagreements.</abstract><cop>San Diego, CA</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1006/jmla.2002.2864</doi><tpages>77</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-596X
ispartof Journal of memory and language, 2002-04, Vol.46 (3), p.441-517
issn 0749-596X
1096-0821
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85558963
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Human
Learning. Memory
Memory
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
title The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T03%3A27%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Nature%20of%20Recollection%20and%20Familiarity:%20A%20Review%20of%2030%20Years%20of%20Research&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20memory%20and%20language&rft.au=Yonelinas,%20Andrew%20P&rft.date=2002-04-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=441&rft.epage=517&rft.pages=441-517&rft.issn=0749-596X&rft.eissn=1096-0821&rft.coden=JMLAE6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E85558963%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=85558963&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0749596X02928640&rfr_iscdi=true