FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2017186875> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2017186875 endingPage "535" @default.
• W2017186875 startingPage "520" @default.
• W2017186875 abstract "Attention and memory are typically studied as separate topics, but they are highly intertwined. Here we discuss the relation between memory and two fundamental types of attention: perceptual and reflective. Memory is the persisting consequence of cognitive activities initiated by and/or focused on external information from the environment (perceptual attention) and initiated by and/or focused on internal mental representations (reflective attention). We consider three key questions for advancing a cognitive neuroscience of attention and memory: To what extent do perception and reflection share representational areas? To what extent are the control processes that select, maintain, and manipulate perceptual and reflective information subserved by common areas and networks? During perception and reflection, to what extent are common areas responsible for binding features together to create complex, episodic memories and for reviving them later? Considering similarities and differences in perceptual and reflective attention helps integrate a broad range of findings and raises important unresolved issues. Attention and memory are typically studied as separate topics, but they are highly intertwined. Here we discuss the relation between memory and two fundamental types of attention: perceptual and reflective. Memory is the persisting consequence of cognitive activities initiated by and/or focused on external information from the environment (perceptual attention) and initiated by and/or focused on internal mental representations (reflective attention). We consider three key questions for advancing a cognitive neuroscience of attention and memory: To what extent do perception and reflection share representational areas? To what extent are the control processes that select, maintain, and manipulate perceptual and reflective information subserved by common areas and networks? During perception and reflection, to what extent are common areas responsible for binding features together to create complex, episodic memories and for reviving them later? Considering similarities and differences in perceptual and reflective attention helps integrate a broad range of findings and raises important unresolved issues. Different research traditions tend to emphasize either attentional phenomena (Posner and Rothbart, 2007Posner M.I. Rothbart M.K. Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of psychological science.Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007; 58: 1-23Crossref PubMed Scopus (362) Google Scholar) or memory phenomena (Eichenbaum et al., 2007Eichenbaum H. Yonelinas A.P. Ranganath C. The medial temporal lobe and recognition memory.Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2007; 30: 123-152Crossref PubMed Scopus (843) Google Scholar, Squire and Wixted, 2011Squire L.R. Wixted J.T. The cognitive neuroscience of human memory since H.M.Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2011; 34: 259-288Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar). Although this “divide and conquer” approach has been extremely useful for advancing knowledge about cognition, there is increasing recognition that fully understanding each may entail understanding the other. Here we focus on the similarities and differences across these domains and an emerging picture of how they interact. We build, in particular, on two previous theoretical frameworks: the external/internal taxonomy of attention (Chun et al., 2011Chun M.M. Golomb J.D. Turk-Browne N.B. A taxonomy of external and internal attention.Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011; 62: 73-101Crossref PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar) and the multiple-entry-modular (MEM) model of cognition, which views memory as traces of perceptual and reflective processing (Johnson and Hirst, 1993Johnson M.K. Hirst W. MEM: Memory subsystems as processes.in: Collins A.A. Gathercole S.S. Conway M.M. Morris P.E. Theories of Memory. Erlbaum, East Sussex, England1993Google Scholar). Drawing on these ideas, and empirical findings that they incorporate, we propose an integrative perceptual/reflective attention/memory (PRAM) framework, which serves to organize current findings and theoretical ideas regarding the relation between attention and memory, and which highlights key unresolved questions. Cognition can be broadly divided into perceptual processes, initiated by and/or directed at external sensory information from the environment, and reflective processes, initiated by and/or directed at internal mental representations. Perceptual processes operate on “incoming,” external stimuli (e.g., reading text, listening to a song). Reflective processes are directed at internal representations, such as thoughts, memories, imagery, decision options, or features of problems. That is, reflective processes can operate on representations in the absence of corresponding external stimuli or independent of current external input (e.g., thinking about what to have for dinner, remembering a friend's remark). At any given moment, not all features, objects, and events in the environment or in the mind can be processed equally (Marois and Ivanoff, 2005Marois R. Ivanoff J. Capacity limits of information processing in the brain.Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.). 2005; 9: 296-305Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (219) Google Scholar). Both perception and reflection are inherently selective, requiring mechanisms of attention—modulating, sustaining, and manipulating the information that is most relevant for current and/or future behavior (Chun et al., 2011Chun M.M. Golomb J.D. Turk-Browne N.B. A taxonomy of external and internal attention.Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011; 62: 73-101Crossref PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar). The by-products of these perceptual and reflective attentional processes are registered as changes or records in the cognitive system, changes that we call “memory.” Although the border between perceiving and reflecting can be fuzzy, there are meaningful differences. Logically, perceiving and reflecting are unlikely to engage exactly the same neural hardware or have exactly the same memorial consequences. That would produce an epistemological quagmire in which we could not tell fact from fantasy in perceiving, thinking, or remembering (Johnson, 2006Johnson M.K. Memory and reality.Am. Psychol. 2006; 61: 760-771Crossref PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar). On the other hand, if there were no interactions between perception and reflection, we would not be able to constructively and creatively cumulate knowledge across experiences of perceiving and thinking. To what extent do perception and reflection activate the same representational and processing regions? To what extent do they have similar and different memorial consequences? Under what conditions do they operate independently and by what mechanisms do they interact? Our review and PRAM framework lead us to several hypotheses that invite further testing. (1) Perception and reflection engage some of the same areas (e.g., posterior sensory areas) for representing information (e.g., concrete items such as objects, faces, and scenes). However, the extent to which they engage the same or different representations within these areas is an open question. The degree of overlap should predict the extent to which perception and reflection influence each other and how likely they are to be confused—for example, in source memory tasks. (2) Perception and reflection both involve frontal and parietal regions that control the direction/focus of attention. However, whether they engage the same regions for similar cognitive functions is an open question and should dictate when perception and reflection interfere with or facilitate each other. (3) It is well accepted that the hippocampus/medial temporal lobe region associates attended information with other existing representations throughout the brain (Davachi, 2006Davachi L. Item, context and relational episodic encoding in humans.Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2006; 16: 693-700Crossref PubMed Scopus (330) Google Scholar, Ranganath, 2010Ranganath C. A unified framework for the functional organization of the medial temporal lobes and the phenomenology of episodic memory.Hippocampus. 2010; 20: 1263-1290Crossref PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar). The resulting configural representations bind multiple features (e.g., perceptual, spatial, temporal, semantic, emotional details) together and give representations an episodic quality (i.e., they have source or contextual information). Are there differences in configural processing active during perception and reflection? Sensory information (e.g., sights, sounds, smells) arrives from different locations in space and points in time. Perceptual attention selects and modulates this information according to current task goals. In the PRAM framework, such processing yields persisting records (traces or memories). Because most research has used visual stimuli, our review will focus on the visual modality. Limited processing capacity prevents equal attention to all items, but when cues direct selective attention to specific locations, perceptual performance is enhanced for cued items (Posner et al., 1980Posner M.I. Snyder C.R. Davidson B.J. Attention and the detection of signals.J. Exp. Psychol. 1980; 109: 160-174Crossref PubMed Scopus (1609) Google Scholar), as is memory for these attended items (Eger et al., 2004Eger E. Henson R.N. Driver J. Dolan R.J. BOLD repetition decreases in object-responsive ventral visual areas depend on spatial attention.J. Neurophysiol. 2004; 92: 1241-1247Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar, Uncapher et al., 2011Uncapher M.R. Hutchinson J.B. Wagner A.D. Dissociable effects of top-down and bottom-up attention during episodic encoding.J. Neurosci. 2011; 31: 12613-12628Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar). Perceptual attention can also select on the basis of features. In a classic study, Rock and Gutman, 1981Rock I. Gutman D. The effect of inattention on form perception.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1981; 7: 275-285Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar showed participants two abstract shapes that spatially overlapped on each trial. One shape was red and one was green, and each participant was told to attend to shapes in only one of the colors. Shapes in the other color were poorly remembered later, even though they spatially overlapped with attended shapes that were remembered. Even with only brief exposures, we appear to store a great deal of detailed perceptual information about selected information (Hollingworth and Henderson, 2002Hollingworth A. Henderson J.M. Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2002; 28: 113-136Crossref Google Scholar, Potter, 1976Potter M.C. Short-term conceptual memory for pictures.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. 1976; 2: 509-522Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). For example, in one study (Brady et al., 2008Brady T.F. Konkle T. Alvarez G.A. Oliva A. Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008; 105: 14325-14329Crossref PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar), participants saw 2,500 pictures of objects, each for 3 s, with instructions to try to remember them. On a later forced-choice recognition test, participants selected the correct previously seen item 92% of the time; even more remarkably, performance was still 87% when participants were required to discriminate between an original picture and the same object in a different state or orientation. In priming studies using even briefer presentations, and no instructions to remember, participants show memory for quite specific representations, although participants do not consciously recognize the items (repetition priming; e.g., Tulving and Schacter, 1990Tulving E. Schacter D.L. Priming and human memory systems.Science. 1990; 247: 301-306Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, Wiggs and Martin, 1998Wiggs C.L. Martin A. Properties and mechanisms of perceptual priming.Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 1998; 8: 227-233Crossref PubMed Scopus (460) Google Scholar, Henson and Rugg, 2003Henson R.N. Rugg M.D. Neural response suppression, haemodynamic repetition effects, and behavioural priming.Neuropsychologia. 2003; 41: 263-270Crossref PubMed Scopus (241) Google Scholar). For example, if participants saw an item for 1 s, they were subsequently better able to identify it under degraded stimulus conditions, even when they did not remember having seen the item before (e.g., Jacoby and Dallas, 1981Jacoby L.L. Dallas M. On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1981; 110: 306-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (1115) Google Scholar). A neural measure of such behavioral priming measures of implicit memory is provided by repetition suppression or attenuation during fMRI: compared to the first exposure to a stimulus, repeating a stimulus results in less activity in representational areas that are active when stimuli of that class are perceived (Epstein and Kanwisher, 1998Epstein R. Kanwisher N. The parahippocampal place area: A cortical representation of the local visual environment.Nature. 1998; 392: 598-601Crossref PubMed Scopus (1214) Google Scholar, Grill-Spector et al., 1999Grill-Spector K. Kushnir T. Edelman S. Avidan G. Itzchak Y. Malach R. Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex.Neuron. 1999; 24: 187-203Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (669) Google Scholar, Kanwisher et al., 1997Kanwisher N. McDermott J. Chun M.M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception.J. Neurosci. 1997; 17: 4302-4311PubMed Google Scholar, Puce et al., 1995Puce A. Allison T. Gore J.C. McCarthy G. Face-sensitive regions in human extrastriate cortex studied by functional MRI.J. Neurophysiol. 1995; 74: 1192-1199PubMed Google Scholar, Schacter and Buckner, 1998Schacter D.L. Buckner R.L. Priming and the brain.Neuron. 1998; 20: 185-195Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (456) Google Scholar). For example, object repetition attenuates activity in the lateral occipital complex (LOC, Grill-Spector et al., 1999Grill-Spector K. Kushnir T. Edelman S. Avidan G. Itzchak Y. Malach R. Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex.Neuron. 1999; 24: 187-203Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (669) Google Scholar, Buckner et al., 1998Buckner R.L. Goodman J. Burock M. Rotte M. Koutstaal W. Schacter D. Rosen B. Dale A.M. Functional-anatomic correlates of object priming in humans revealed by rapid presentation event-related fMRI.Neuron. 1998; 20: 285-296Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (442) Google Scholar), while face repetition and scene repetition attenuation effects are found in the fusiform face area (FFA, Jiang et al., 2006Jiang X. Rosen E. Zeffiro T. Vanmeter J. Blanz V. Riesenhuber M. Evaluation of a shape-based model of human face discrimination using FMRI and behavioral techniques.Neuron. 2006; 50: 159-172Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar) and the parahippocampal place area (PPA, Epstein et al., 1999Epstein R. Stanley D. Harris A. Kanwisher N. The Parahippocampal Place Area: Perception, Encoding, or Memory Retrieval?.Neuron. 1999; 23: 115-125Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (384) Google Scholar), respectively. Perceptual attention enhances stimulus-specific representations, as measured with fMRI repetition attenuation. An object appearing in a cued location shows more repetition attenuation than an object appearing in an uncued location (Eger et al., 2004Eger E. Henson R.N. Driver J. Dolan R.J. BOLD repetition decreases in object-responsive ventral visual areas depend on spatial attention.J. Neurophysiol. 2004; 92: 1241-1247Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar, Chee and Tan, 2007Chee M.W.L. Tan J.C. Inter-relationships between attention, activation, fMR adaptation and long-term memory.Neuroimage. 2007; 37: 1487-1495Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar). In one study, participants were presented on each trial with a face and scene that overlapped spatially and were cued to attend either to the face or the scene. Repetition attenuation was observed in PPA when scenes were repeated on a subsequent trial only when participants were instructed to attend to the scene on both the first and second presentation (Yi and Chun, 2005Yi D.J. Chun M.M. Attentional modulation of learning-related repetition attenuation effects in human parahippocampal cortex.J. Neurosci. 2005; 25: 3593-3600Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar). Thus, attention is important for both encoding and expression of learning. Component processes of reflection (Johnson and Hirst, 1993Johnson M.K. Hirst W. MEM: Memory subsystems as processes.in: Collins A.A. Gathercole S.S. Conway M.M. Morris P.E. Theories of Memory. Erlbaum, East Sussex, England1993Google Scholar) are the cognitive elements of what is often referred to as controlled/executive processing or working memory (Baddeley, 1992Baddeley A. Working memory.Science. 1992; 255: 556-559Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, Smith and Jonides, 1999Smith E.E. Jonides J. Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes.Science. 1999; 283: 1657-1661Crossref PubMed Scopus (1546) Google Scholar). Refreshing is the act of briefly thinking of, and thereby foregrounding, a percept or thought that was activated moments earlier. Rehearsing maintains information (e.g., several verbal items in a phonological loop, Baddeley, 1992Baddeley A. Working memory.Science. 1992; 255: 556-559Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), over longer intervals of several seconds. (Ranganath et al., 2005Ranganath C. Cohen M.X. Brozinsky C.J. Working memory maintenance contributes to long-term memory formation: neural and behavioral evidence.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2005; 17: 994-1010Crossref PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar make a similar distinction between early and late maintenance processes.) Selectively refreshing an activated representation of a perceptual stimulus that has just disappeared, a thought that just became active, or an item that is currently in an active rehearsal set boosts the strength of that item relative to other active items, making it the focus of attention (Cowan, 2001Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity.Behav. Brain Sci. 2001; 24 (discussion 114–185): 87-114Crossref PubMed Scopus (1893) Google Scholar) and giving it a competitive advantage for additional processing. Thus, refreshing and rehearsing, individually and together, constitute reflective attention that selects, maintains, and manipulates the contents of working memory. Reviving representations that are not currently active involves the component processes of reactivating or retrieving. Once revived, these longer-term memory representations can be further extended briefly by refreshing and/or rehearsing them. Other reflective processes include noting and/or discovering relations among active representations (processes underlying, for example, elaboration and organization of information) and initiating or shifting between representations, features, tasks, or goals (processes needed, for example, to control or manipulate the sequence of mental events). Thus, reflective attention selects, maintains, and manipulates information from working memory and long-term memory and promotes long-lasting memories (Craik and Lockhart, 1972Craik F.I.M. Lockhart R.S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1972; 11: 671-684Crossref Scopus (2649) Google Scholar, Roediger and Karpicke, 2006Roediger III, H.L. Karpicke J.D. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention.Psychol. Sci. 2006; 17: 249-255Crossref PubMed Scopus (444) Google Scholar, Tulving, 1962Tulving E. Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words.Psychol. Rev. 1962; 69: 344-354Crossref PubMed Scopus (239) Google Scholar). For example, in one study comparing refreshing to perceptual repetition, participants viewed and read aloud words as they appeared one at a time. Some words appeared and were read aloud only once, some words appeared and were read aloud twice in succession (repeated—perceptual processing), and other words were read once and followed by a cue that signaled participants to think of (refresh) the immediately preceding word and say it out loud. A surprise test at the end of the experiment revealed greater recognition memory for words that had been refreshed than words that had been read once or read twice (Johnson et al., 2002Johnson M.K. Reeder J.A. Raye C.L. Mitchell K.J. Second thoughts versus second looks: an age-related deficit in reflectively refreshing just-activated information.Psychol. Sci. 2002; 13: 64-67Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). Even greater effects on long-term memory are yielded when information is reactivated and retrieved on different occasions over time (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006Roediger III, H.L. Karpicke J.D. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention.Psychol. Sci. 2006; 17: 249-255Crossref PubMed Scopus (444) Google Scholar). If accurate source features are revived, reflectively reviving events can protect against memory distortion (Henkel, 2004Henkel L.A. Erroneous memories arising from repeated attempts to remember.J. Mem. Lang. 2004; 50: 26-46Crossref Scopus (34) Google Scholar). Do representations that are the outcome of perceptual attention also serve as targets for reflective attention? Reflection modulates activity in many of the same representational areas as perceptual attention. For example, both refreshing and rehearsing modulate activity in posterior areas involved in perception (Curtis and D'Esposito, 2003Curtis C.E. D'Esposito M. Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory.Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.). 2003; 7: 415-423Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (551) Google Scholar, Harrison and Tong, 2009Harrison S.A. Tong F. Decoding reveals the contents of visual working memory in early visual areas.Nature. 2009; 458: 632-635Crossref PubMed Scopus (284) Google Scholar, Johnson et al., 2009Johnson J.D. McDuff S.G.R. Rugg M.D. Norman K.A. Recollection, familiarity, and cortical reinstatement: a multivoxel pattern analysis.Neuron. 2009; 63: 697-708Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar, Ranganath et al., 2005Ranganath C. Cohen M.X. Brozinsky C.J. Working memory maintenance contributes to long-term memory formation: neural and behavioral evidence.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2005; 17: 994-1010Crossref PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar). Johnson et al., 2009Johnson J.D. McDuff S.G.R. Rugg M.D. Norman K.A. Recollection, familiarity, and cortical reinstatement: a multivoxel pattern analysis.Neuron. 2009; 63: 697-708Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar directly compared selective perceptual and reflective attention and found similar effects on sensory representations (Figure 1). Participants were shown a scene and a face on each trial and were either cued in advance to attend perceptually to the scene or face or cued after the stimulus was removed to refresh the scene or the face. Both perception (attend) and reflection (refresh) showed comparable enhancement and suppression effects relative to a passive viewing condition. Although perceptual representations and refreshed representations in working memory may engage the same brain areas, long-term memory representations could be coded in areas different from those of the processes that gave rise to them (Barsalou, 2008Barsalou L.W. Grounded cognition.Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2008; 59: 617-645Crossref PubMed Scopus (1157) Google Scholar). However, fMRI evidence suggests that long-term memory often involves reactivation of the same areas engaged during encoding. Retrieving visual events during long-term memory tasks activates visual cortex, while retrieving auditory events from memory activates auditory cortex (Wheeler et al., 2000Wheeler M.E. Petersen S.E. Buckner R.L. Memory's echo: vivid remembering reactivates sensory-specific cortex.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2000; 97: 11125-11129Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). Importantly, the extent to which encoding activity is reinstated during long-term remembering depends in part on what reflective agenda is engaged during remembering (McDuff et al., 2009McDuff S.G.R. Frankel H.C. Norman K.A. Multivoxel pattern analysis reveals increased memory targeting and reduced use of retrieved details during single-agenda source monitoring.J. Neurosci. 2009; 29: 508-516Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar). Further evidence that perception and reflection may each later re-engage the same representations comes from a study in which Turk-Browne et al., 2006Turk-Browne N.B. Yi D.J. Chun M.M. Linking implicit and explicit memory: common encoding factors and shared representations.Neuron. 2006; 49: 917-927Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar examined how repetition attenuation in scene-selective regions was related to measures of explicit subsequent memory (Brewer et al., 1998Brewer J.B. Zhao Z. Desmond J.E. Glover G.H. Gabrieli J.D.E. Making memories: brain activity that predicts how well visual experience will be remembered.Science. 1998; 281: 1185-1187Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, Wagner et al., 1998Wagner A.D. Schacter D.L. Rotte M. Koutstaal W. Maril A. Dale A.M. Rosen B.R. Buckner R.L. Building memories: remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity.Science. 1998; 281: 1188-1191Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). Each scene was repeated somewhere in the study sequence and the experimenters sorted the data according to whether or not each scene was later recognized. Repetition attenuation in PPA (and behavioral priming) on the second presentation was only significant for repeated items that were later remembered (see also Gonsalves et al., 2005Gonsalves B.D. Kahn I. Curran T. Norman K.A. Wagner A.D. Memory strength and repetition suppression: multimodal imaging of medial temporal cortical contributions to recognition.Neuron. 2005; 47: 751-761Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (141) Google Scholar, Chee and Tan, 2007Chee M.W.L. Tan J.C. Inter-relationships between attention, activation, fMR adaptation and long-term memory.Neuroimage. 2007; 37: 1487-1495Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar), consistent with the idea that repetition attenuation (a perceptual effect) draws on the same level of representation (PPA) as does the phenomenal experience of remembering. Other evidence that reflection and perception can operate on the same representations comes from an fMRI study that measured repetition suppression to assess representational strength of previously viewed and previously refreshed scenes. There were similar levels of repetition suppression in PPA for items seen and refreshed once as for items seen twice (Yi et al., 2008Yi D.J. Turk-Browne N.B. Chun M.M. Johnson M.K. When a thought equals a look: refreshing enhances perceptual memory.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008; 20: 1371-1380Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). The impact on long-term memory from viewing an item once and refreshing it was equivalent to having seen the item twice. This provides strong evidence that refreshing active representations of perceptual events engages the same representation (not simply the same representational area) and that the consequences last beyond a few seconds. These findings also support the idea that perception and reflection interact to influence memory through the engagement of common representations. Other evidence that perception and reflection can share common representations is that a reflective representation may serve as a “template” that affects perceptual selection (Olivers et al., 2011Olivers C.N.L. Peters J. Houtkamp R. Roelfsema P.R. Different states in visual working memory: when it guides attention and when it does not.Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.). 2011; 15: 327-334PubMed Google Scholar). Additional research is needed to clarify to what extent individual memories can be decoded from brain activity at test. Currently, decoding category-specific activity within ventral cortex during recall, using multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA, Polyn et al., 2005Polyn S.M. Natu V.S. Cohen J.D. Norman K.A. Category-specific cortical activity precedes retrieval during memory search.Science. 2005; 310: 1963-1966Crossref PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar), can signal the class of an item one is probably remembering (e.g., scene, face, object). Also, the ability to discriminate more specifically what a person is remembering is starting to show promise. In a face recognition task, MVPA reliably decoded whether or not participants said they had seen faces but not whether they had actually seen them (Rissman et al., 2010Rissman J. Greely H.T. Wagner A.D. Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010; 107: 9849-9854Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar). This is consistent with behavioral and fMRI evidence that true and false memories are attributions about mental experiences based on their qualitative characteristics (Johnson, 2006Johnson M.K. Memory and reality.Am. Psychol. 2006; 61: 760-771Crossref PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, Mitchell and Johnson, 2009Mitchell K.J. Johnson M.K. Source monitoring 15 years later: what have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?.Psychol. Bull. 2009; 135: 638-677Crossref PubMed Scopus (158) Google Scholar). Mental imagery of specific visual orientations can be decoded above chance from low-level visual cortex (Kamitani and Tong, 200" @default.
• W2017186875 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2017186875 creator A5011637851 @default.
• W2017186875 creator A5071796298 @default.
• W2017186875 date "2011-11-01" @default.
• W2017186875 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2017186875 title "Memory: Enduring Traces of Perceptual and Reflective Attention" @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1509775080 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1514930531 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1619178479 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1632573554 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1708732123 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1873033581 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1966647730 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1968635050 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1968864236 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1970695058 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1971485201 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1971553589 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1971950904 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1977685900 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1984128064 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1988725769 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1990451873 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1997990920 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1999110283 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W1999567494 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2000130182 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2000217686 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2005185079 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2006644845 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2008580260 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2012565553 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2014550466 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2018123746 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2019370496 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2019815181 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2020320000 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2021742211 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2022501908 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2025091063 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2026118135 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2028169413 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2029386843 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2029787738 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2031284965 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2035207561 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2036084760 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2036591015 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2037416832 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2039491568 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2042664695 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2045519551 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2045758998 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2046260226 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2046891131 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2047431989 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2049191545 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2049350742 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2051267669 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2051747359 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2052154927 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2053519201 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2054204061 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2057046889 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2059473123 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2061054583 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2061232101 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2062240599 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2062752228 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2062787021 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2064689116 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2065120830 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2066284540 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2067765425 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2067897715 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2069753323 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2069968062 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2072637284 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2074143784 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2078099808 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2079082269 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2079450984 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2082318782 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2083956595 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2084528966 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2087776516 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2088486343 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2090813996 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2093385392 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2094516509 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2096259174 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2096725231 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2096955942 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2097741515 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2103738604 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2103780005 @default.
• W2017186875 cites W2105173605 @default.

• next