Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Cortex. 2024 Jul;176:194-208. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2024.04.017. Epub 2024 May 21.
Two event-related potential (ERP) components are commonly observed in recognition memory tasks: the Frontal Negativity (FN400) and the Late Positive Component (LPC). These components are widely interpreted as neural correlates of familiarity and recollection, respectively. However, the interpretation of LPC effects is complicated by inconsistent results regarding the timing of ERP amplitude differences. There are also mixed findings regarding how LPC amplitudes covary with decision confidence. Critically, LPC effects have almost always been measured using fixed time windows relative to memory probe stimulus onset, yet it has not been determined whether LPC effects are time locked to the stimulus or the recognition memory decision. To investigate this, we analysed a large (n = 132) existing dataset recorded during recognition memory tasks with old/new decisions followed by post-decisional confidence ratings. We used ERP deconvolution to disentangle contributions to LPC effects (defined as differences between hits and correct rejections) that were time locked to either the stimulus or the vocal old/new response. We identified a left-lateralised parietal LPC effect that was time locked to the vocal response rather than probe stimulus onset. We also isolated a response-locked, midline parietal ERP correlate of confidence that influenced measures of LPC amplitudes at left parietal electrodes. Our findings demonstrate that, contrary to widespread assumptions, the LPC effect is time locked to the recognition memory decision and is best measured using response-locked ERPs. By extension, differences in response time distributions across conditions of interest may lead to substantial measurement biases when analysing stimulus-locked ERPs. Our findings highlight important confounding factors that further complicate the interpretation of existing stimulus-locked LPC effects as neural correlates of recollection. We recommend that future studies adopt our analytic approach to better isolate LPC effects and their sensitivity to manipulations in recognition memory tasks.
两种与事件相关的电位(ERP)成分通常在识别记忆任务中观察到:额负(FN400)和晚期正成分(LPC)。这些成分分别被广泛解释为熟悉度和回忆的神经相关物。然而,由于关于 ERP 幅度差异的时间的不一致结果,LPC 效应的解释变得复杂。关于 LPC 幅度如何与决策信心相关,也存在混合的发现。至关重要的是,LPC 效应几乎总是使用相对于记忆探针刺激开始的固定时间窗口来测量,但是尚未确定 LPC 效应是否与刺激或识别记忆决策锁定时间。为了研究这一点,我们分析了一个大型(n=132)现有的数据集,该数据集是在识别记忆任务中记录的,其中包含旧/新决策以及决策后信心评分。我们使用 ERP 去卷积来区分锁定到刺激或声音旧/新响应的 LPC 效应(定义为命中和正确拒绝之间的差异)的贡献。我们确定了一个左外侧顶叶 LPC 效应,该效应与声音响应而不是探针刺激开始锁定时间。我们还分离出一个与响应锁定的中线顶叶 ERP 相关的置信度,该置信度影响左顶叶电极处 LPC 幅度的测量。我们的发现表明,与广泛的假设相反,LPC 效应与识别记忆决策锁定时间,并且最好使用响应锁定 ERP 进行测量。因此,在分析刺激锁定 ERP 时,感兴趣条件下的响应时间分布差异可能会导致大量的测量偏差。我们的发现强调了重要的混杂因素,这些因素进一步复杂化了将现有的刺激锁定 LPC 效应作为回忆的神经相关物的解释。我们建议未来的研究采用我们的分析方法,以更好地分离 LPC 效应及其对识别记忆任务中的操作的敏感性。