P300 and recall in an incidental memory paradigm.

In previous research Karis, Fabiani, and Donchin (1984) found a relationship between the amplitude of the P300s elicited by words and subsequent recall performance. Words later recalled elicited larger P300s than words later not recalled. However, this relationship was dependent on the mnemonic strategies used by the subjects. There was a strong relationship between P300 amplitude and recall when rote rehearsal strategies were used, but when subjects used elaborative strategies the relationship between P300 amplitude and recall was not evident. In the present experiment we employed an incidental memory paradigm to reduce the use of rehearsal strategies. An “oddball’ task consisting of a series of names was presented, and subjects were required to count either the male or the female names. Event-related brain potentials were recorded to the presentation of each name. Following the oddball task, subjects were asked, unexpectedly, to recall as many names as possible. The names that were recalled had elicited, on their initial presentation, larger P300s than names not recalled. Thus, these results confirm our hypothesis: when elaborative rehearsal strategies are not used, the relationship between P300 and memory emerges more consistently. Our data provide support for a “context updating’ hypothesis of the functional significance of the P300.

[1]  H. V. Restorff Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld , 1933 .

[2]  H. Jasper Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography , 1958 .

[3]  E. John,et al.  Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty , 1965, Science.

[4]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[5]  E. Courchesne,et al.  Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  N. Squires,et al.  The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. , 1976, Science.

[7]  E. Donchin,et al.  On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[8]  E. Donchin,et al.  COGNITIVE PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY: THE ENDOGENOUS COMPONENTS OF THE ERP , 1978 .

[9]  E Donchin,et al.  On how P300 amplitude varies with the utility of the eliciting stimuli. , 1978, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  B. Efron Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 1979 .

[11]  G. Mandler Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. , 1980 .

[12]  A. Kok,et al.  The effect of repetition of infrequent familiar and unfamiliar visual patterns on components of the event-related brain potential , 1980, Biological Psychology.

[13]  E. Donchin Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[14]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  P. Diaconis,et al.  Computer-Intensive Methods in Statistics , 1983 .

[16]  B. Efron,et al.  A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and , 1983 .

[17]  E. Donchin,et al.  People with Absolute Pitch Process Tones Without Producing a P300 , 1984, Science.

[18]  E. Donchin,et al.  “P300” and memory: Individual differences in the von Restorff effect , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  E Donchin,et al.  Second thoughts: multiple P300s elicited by a single stimulus. , 1985, Psychophysiology.