The relationship between study processing and the effects of cue congruency at retrieval: fMRI support for transfer appropriate processing.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, the present study investigated whether the enhanced memory performance associated with congruent relative to incongruent retrieval cues is modulated by how items are encoded. Subjects studied a list of visually presented words and pictures and attempted to recognize these items in a later memory test. Half of the studied items were tested with a congruent cue (word-word and picture-picture), whereas the remainders were tested with an incongruent cue (word-picture and picture-word). For both words and pictures, regions where study activity was greater for congruently than incongruently cued items overlapped regions where activity differentiated the 2 classes of study material. Thus, word congruency effects overlapped regions where activity elicited by study words exceeded the activity elicited by pictures. Similarly, picture congruency effects overlapped regions demonstrating enhanced activity for pictures relative to words. In addition, several regions, including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and intraparietal sulcus, demonstrated material-nonspecific congruency effects. The findings suggest that items benefit from a congruent retrieval cue when their study processing resembles the processing later engaged by the retrieval cue. Consistent with the principle of transfer appropriate processing, the benefit of a congruent retrieval cue derives from the interaction between study and retrieval processing.

[1]  Astrid M. Schloerscheidt,et al.  The impact of change in stimulus format on the electrophysiological indices of recognition , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Rhodri Cusack,et al.  The Intraparietal Sulcus and Perceptual Organization , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  G. V. Simpson,et al.  Preparatory deployment of attention to motion activates higher-order motion-processing brain regions , 2004, NeuroImage.

[4]  R. Henson,et al.  State-related and item-related neural correlates of successful memory encoding , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[5]  H. Roediger,et al.  Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account , 1989 .

[6]  Michael D. Rugg,et al.  Neural Correlates of Retrieval Orientation: Effects of StudyTest Similarity , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  M. Kendall Statistical Methods for Research Workers , 1937, Nature.

[8]  G Eden,et al.  The Neurobiological Basis of Reading , 2001, Journal of learning disabilities.

[9]  M. Rugg,et al.  When more means less neural activity related to unsuccessful memory encoding , 2001, Current Biology.

[10]  T. Shallice,et al.  Recollection and Familiarity in Recognition Memory: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  David C. Van Essen,et al.  Application of Information Technology: An Integrated Software Suite for Surface-based Analyses of Cerebral Cortex , 2001, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  J. Ashburner,et al.  Nonlinear spatial normalization using basis functions , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[13]  Melina R. Uncapher,et al.  Episodic Encoding Is More than the Sum of Its Parts: An fMRI Investigation of Multifeatural Contextual Encoding , 2006, Neuron.

[14]  Philippe Fossati,et al.  Modulation of Memory Formation by Stimulus Content: Specific Role of the Medial Prefrontal Cortex in the Successful Encoding of Social Pictures , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  C. Stern,et al.  Prefrontal–Temporal Circuitry for Episodic Encoding and Subsequent Memory , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  K. Paller,et al.  Observing the transformation of experience into memory , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Barry Horwitz,et al.  fMRI study comparing names versus pictures of objects , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[18]  G. Mangun,et al.  The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  R. Turner,et al.  Event-Related fMRI: Characterizing Differential Responses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[20]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The functional organization of human extrastriate cortex: a PET-rCBF study of selective attention to faces and locations , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[21]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[22]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition , 2001, Vision Research.

[23]  R. Fisher Statistical methods for research workers , 1927, Protoplasma.

[24]  B. C. Vickery The RETRIEVAL PROCESS , 1967 .

[25]  J. S. Nairne The myth of the encoding-retrieval match , 2002, Memory.

[26]  M. Rugg,et al.  Task-dependency of the neural correlates of episodic encoding as measured by fMRI. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[27]  David C. Van Essen,et al.  A Population-Average, Landmark- and Surface-based (PALS) atlas of human cerebral cortex , 2005, NeuroImage.

[28]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Neural representation of objects in space: a dual coding account. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[29]  E. Tulving Memory and consciousness. , 1985 .

[30]  Thomas J. Ross,et al.  Neuroanatomical dissociation between bottom–up and top–down processes of visuospatial selective attention , 2006, NeuroImage.

[31]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Human Brain Activity Related to the Perception of Spatial Features of Objects , 1999, NeuroImage.

[32]  Mahzarin R. Banaji,et al.  Encoding-Specific Effects of Social Cognition on the Neural Correlates of Subsequent Memory , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  Paul C. Locasto,et al.  A systematic investigation of the functional neuroanatomy of auditory and visual phonological processing , 2005, NeuroImage.

[34]  L. Otten,et al.  Fragments of a larger whole: retrieval cues constrain observed neural correlates of memory encoding. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[35]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[36]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  BrainWeb: Online Interface to a 3D MRI Simulated Brain Database , 1997 .

[37]  John C Gore,et al.  The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The Representation of Objects in the Human Occipital and Temporal Cortex , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  A. Paivio Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[40]  Karalyn Patterson,et al.  A Pet Study of Visual and Semantic Knowledge About Objects , 2005, Cortex.

[41]  L. Jacoby,et al.  The Relation between Remembering and Knowing as Bases for Recognition: Effects of Size Congruency , 1995 .

[42]  A. Paivio Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[43]  Beatriz Luna,et al.  Combining Brains: A Survey of Methods for Statistical Pooling of Information , 2002, NeuroImage.

[44]  Rugg,et al.  Recollection and familiarity in recognition memory: an event-related fMRI study , 1999 .

[45]  A. Dale,et al.  Building memories: remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. , 1998, Science.