Cited by 253Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laboratory-based and autobiographical retrieval tasks differ substantially in their neural substrates

Abstract

In designing experiments to investigate retrieval of event memory, researchers choose between utilizing laboratory-based methods (in which to-be-remembered materials are presented to participants) and autobiographical approaches (in which the to-be-remembered materials are events from the participant's pre-experimental life). In practice, most laboratory studies have utilized old/new recognition memory, and most autobiographical memory studies have used the Galton-Crovitz word cueing technique [Crovitz, H.F., & Schiffman, H. (1974). Frequency of episodic memories as a function of their age. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 517-518]. What are the implications of these methodological choices for understanding the component processes and underlying neural substrates of memory retrieval? An Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analysis procedure [Turkeltaub, P., Eden, G., Jones, K., & Zeffiro, TA. (2002). Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: Method and validation. NeuroImage, 16, 765-780] was used to construct two whole-brain statistical maps: one showing brain regions that are consistently implicated when the task utilized is old/new recognition memory and one showing regions that tend to emerge when autobiographical event memory is queried. A comparison of the two maps shows very few regions of overlap. This basic methodological choice has a profound impact on the conclusions reached regarding human memory retrieval and its neural substrates.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.025

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 249

Metadata

Authors
McDermott, K. B., Szpunar, K. K., & Christ, S. E.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
McDermott, Kathleen B.
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
47
Issue
11
Pages
2290-2298
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990300812
Cited by
253
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 23
FWCI
4.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
memory retrieval, autobiographical memory, event memory, neural substrates of memory, brain regions, episodic memory
MeSH terms
Autobiographies as Topic, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cues, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, MEDLINE, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review