Cited by 835Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Recollection and Familiarity in Recognition Memory: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

Open access
Henson, R. N. A., Rugg, M. D., Shallice, T., Josephs, O., Dolan, R. J.·1999·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The question of whether recognition memory judgments with and without recollection reflect dissociable patterns of brain activity is unresolved. We used event-related, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of 12 healthy volunteers to measure hemodynamic responses associated with both studying and recognizing words. Volunteers made one of three judgments to each word during recognition: whether they recollected seeing it during study (R judgments), whether they experienced a feeling of familiarity in the absence of recollection (K judgments), or whether they did not remember seeing it during study (N judgments). Both R and K judgments for studied words were associated with enhanced responses in left prefrontal and left parietal cortices relative to N judgments for unstudied words. The opposite pattern was observed in bilateral temporoccipital regions and amygdalae. R judgments for studied words were associated with enhanced responses in anterior left prefrontal, left parietal, and posterior cingulate regions relative to K judgments. At study, a posterior left prefrontal region exhibited an enhanced response to words subsequently given R versus K judgments, but the response of this region during recognition did not differentiate R and K judgments. K judgments for studied words were associated with enhanced responses in right lateral and medial prefrontal cortex relative to both R judgments for studied words and N judgments for unstudied words, a difference we attribute to greater monitoring demands when memory judgments are less certain. These results suggest that the responses of different brain regions do dissociate according to the phenomenology associated with memory retrieval.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.19-10-03962.1999

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The distinction between remembering and knowing is supported by experimental manipulations, imaging studies, and dissociations following brain injury.

    “This distinction is supported by experimental manipulations and imaging studies, and by dissociations in impairments following brain injury (Gardiner et al. 2002; Henson et al. 1999; Klein et al. 2002b; Tulving 2005).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Henson RNA, Shallice T, Dolan RJ (1999) Right prefrontal cortex and memory retrieval: an fMRI test of the monitoring hypothesis. Brain, in press.
  2. Schacter DL, Wagner AD (1999) Medial temporal lobe activations in fMRI and PET studies of episodic encoding and retrieval. Hippocam- pus, in press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henson, R. N. A., Rugg, M. D., Shallice, T., Josephs, O., & Dolan, R. J.
Affiliations
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1999-05-15
Volume
19
Issue
10
Pages
3962-3972
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2133732234
Cited by
835
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 35
FWCI
20.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • SDL (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (051028)
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
recognition memory, recollection, familiarity, memory judgments, prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, amygdala, posterior cingulate cortex, memory monitoring, word recognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Evoked Potentials, Hemodynamics, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Recall, Reference Values

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