Search

The present study was carried out to examine how the event-related potentials to fragmentation predict recognition success. Stimuli were abstract meaningless figures that were either complete or fragmented to various extents but still recoverable. Stimuli were first encoded as part of a symmetry discrimination task. In a subsequent recognition phase, encoded stimuli were presented complete along with never presented stimuli and participants performed an old/new discrimination task. Fragmentation stimuli elicited more negative ERPs than complete figures over the frontal, central and parietal areas between 180 and 260 ms, and over the occipito-temporal areas between 220 and 340 ms. Only this latter effect was modulated as a function of whether stimuli were recognized or not during the recognition phase of the memory test. More specifically, the effect occurred for stimuli that were later forgotten and was absent for stimuli that were later recognized. This ERP to fragmentation, the occipito-temporal N(frag) possibly reflects the brain response to encoding difficulty, and is thus predictive of recognition performance.

Introduction There has been rapid expansion of interest in reward processing deficits in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD). (1,2) As the nature of the reward deficits is better defined, a [...], Background: Dysfunctional reward processing is present in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD) and may confer vulnerability to addiction. Our objective was to identify a deficit in patients with SSD on response to rewarding stimuli and determine whether this deficit predicts cannabis use. Methods: We divided a group of patients with SSD and nonpsychotic controls into cannabis users and nonusers. Response to emotional and cannabis-associated visual stimuli was assessed using self-report, event-related potentials (using the late positive potential [LPP]), facial electromyography and skin-conductance response. Results: Our sample comprised 35 patients with SSD and 35 nonpsychotic controls. Compared with controls, the patients with SSD showed blunted LPP response to pleasant stimuli (p = 0.003). Across measures, cannabis-using controls showed greater response to pleasant stimuli than to cannabis stimuli whereas cannabis-using patients showed little bias toward pleasant stimuli. Reduced LPP response to pleasant stimuli was predictive of more frequent subsequent cannabis use (P =-0.24, p = 0.034). Limitations: It is not clear if the deficit associated with cannabis use is specific to rewarding stimuli or nonspecific to any kind of emotionally salient stimuli. Conclusion: The LPP captures a reward processing deficit in patients with SSD and shows potential as a biomarker for identifying patients at risk of heavy cannabis use.

In everyday life, detecting new items often requires memory retrieval to avoid confounding them with similar items. This study examined whether there are differences between the electrophysiological indexes of memory recollection used to correctly detect novel and to recognize studied items. The EEG of 17 participants was recorded while completing two episodic memory experiments with photos of objects. In Experiment 1, the new objects were unrelated to the studied objects and thus initiated no memory recollection. In Experiment 2, the new objects were lures which could only be correctly rejected following memory recollection of the studied objects for comparison. Classic FN400 and parietal old/new effects were found when comparing old objects with new unrelated objects. When new objects were lures (objects similar to the old ones), the FN400 effect disappeared, the parietal old/new effect remained present, and a frontal old/new effect emerged. Rejecting similar stimuli thus activates brain regions that are different from those involved in rejecting nonsimilar stimuli. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Dysfunctional reward processing is present in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD) and may confer vulnerability to addiction. Our objective was to identify a deficit in patients with SSD on response to rewarding stimuli and determine whether this deficit predicts cannabis use. METHODS: We divided a group of patients with SSD and nonpsychotic controls into cannabis users and nonusers. Response to emotional and cannabis-associated visual stimuli was assessed using self-report, event-related potentials (using the late positive potential [LPP]), facial electromyography and skin-conductance response. RESULTS: Our sample comprised 35 patients with SSD and 35 nonpsychotic controls. Compared with controls, the patients with SSD showed blunted LPP response to pleasant stimuli (p = 0.003). Across measures, cannabis-using controls showed greater response to pleasant stimuli than to cannabis stimuli whereas cannabis-using patients showed little bias toward pleasant stimuli. Reduced LPP response to pleasant stimuli was predictive of more frequent subsequent cannabis use (β = -0.24, p = 0.034). LIMITATIONS: It is not clear if the deficit associated with cannabis use is specific to rewarding stimuli or nonspecific to any kind of emotionally salient stimuli. CONCLUSION: The LPP captures a reward-processing deficit in patients with SSD and shows potential as a biomarker for identifying patients at risk of heavy cannabis use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pictorial stimuli are commonly used by scientists to explore central processes; including memory, attention, and language. Pictures that have been collected and put into sets for these purposes often contain visual ambiguities that lead to name disagreement amongst subjects. In the present work, we propose new norms which reflect these sources of name disagreement, and we apply this method to two sets of pictures: the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (S&V) set and the Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS). Naming responses of the presented pictures were classified within response categories based on whether they were correct, incorrect, or equivocal. To characterize the naming strategy where an alternative name was being used, responses were further divided into different sub-categories that reflected various sources of name disagreement. Naming strategies were also compared across the two sets of stimuli. Results showed that the pictures of the S&V set and the BOSS were more likely to elicit alternative specific and equivocal names, respectively. It was also found that the use of incorrect names was not significantly different across stimulus sets but that errors were more likely caused by visual ambiguity in the S&V set and by a misuse of names in the BOSS. Norms for name disagreement presented in this paper are useful for subsequent research for their categorization and elucidation of name disagreement that occurs when choosing visual stimuli from one or both stimulus sets. The sources of disagreement should be examined carefully as they help to provide an explanation of errors and inconsistencies of many concepts during picture naming tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]