Neurophysiological correlates of memory for experienced and imagined events
Abstract
Changes in slow cortical potentials within EEG were monitored while autobiographical memories of experienced and imagined event were generated and then held in mind for a short period. The generation of both kinds of memory led to significantly larger negative dc shifts over left versus right frontal regions, and this was interpreted as a reflection of substantial left frontal activation. The generation phase was also associated with greater right versus left negative dc shifts over posterior occipital regions. This pattern replicates and extends previous findings from our laboratory. In addition, however, experienced memories were associated with significantly larger negative dc shifts over occipito-temporal regions than imagined events. Furthermore, during the hold-in-mind period, imagined events led to larger negative dc shifts over left frontal regions than experienced events. These findings suggest that memories for imagined and experienced events may share control processes that mediate construction of memories but that they differ in the types of content of the memories: memories of experienced events contain sensory-perceptual episodic knowledge stored in occipital networks whereas memories for imagined events contain generic imagery generated from frontal networks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Evidence from a previous EEG study suggests that common processes underlie recall of both real and imaginary events.
“Moreover, evidence from a previous EEG study (Conway et al., 2003) also suggests that common processes underlie the recall of both real and imaginary events.”
From Using Imagination to Understand the Neural Basis of Episodic Memory (2007) · cites this paper as Conway et al., 2003
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 30 · Cited by 156
- Authors
- Conway, M. A., Pleydell-Pearce, C. W., Whitecross, S. E., & Sharpe, H.
- Affiliations
- Durham University (GB)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Conway, Martin A
- ORCID
- Conway, Martin A
- Venue
- Neuropsychologia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 334-340
- ISSN
- 0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2160338477
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Research Councils UK
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
- 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
- autobiographical memory, imagined events, slow cortical potentials, memory formation, memory maintenance, episodic memory, mental imagery, memory construction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Discrimination, Psychological, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Reality Testing
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