Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:56:29.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Memory monitoring failure in confabulation: Evidence from the semantic illusion paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2010

IRENE P. KAN ,
KAREN F. LAROCQUE ,
GINETTE LAFLECHE ,
H. BRANCH COSLETT  and
MIEKE VERFAELLIE
IRENE P. KAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania Memory Disorders Research Center, VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
KAREN F. LAROCQUE
Affiliation:
Memory Disorders Research Center, VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
GINETTE LAFLECHE
Affiliation:
Memory Disorders Research Center, VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
H. BRANCH COSLETT
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MIEKE VERFAELLIE
Affiliation:
Memory Disorders Research Center, VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Irene P. Kan, Department of Psychology, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several prominent models of confabulation characterize the syndrome as a failure in controlled aspects of memory retrieval, such as pre-retrieval cue specification and post-retrieval monitoring. These models have been generated primarily in the context of studies of autobiographical memory retrieval. Less research has focused on the existence and mechanisms of semantic confabulation. We examined whether confabulation extends to the semantic domain, and if so, whether it could be understood as a monitoring failure. We focus on post-retrieval monitoring by using a verification task that minimizes cue specification demands. We used the semantic illusion paradigm that elicits erroneous endorsement of misleading statements (e.g., “Two animals of each kind were brought onto the Ark by Moses before the great flood”) even in controls, despite their knowing the correct answer (e.g., Noah). Monitoring demands were manipulated by varying semantic overlap between target and foils, ranging from high semantic overlap to unrelated. We found that semantic overlap modulated the magnitude of semantic illusion in all groups. Compared to controls, both confabulators and non-confabulators had greater difficulty monitoring semantically related foils; however, elevated endorsement of unrelated foils was unique to confabulators. We interpret our findings in the context of a two-process model of post-retrieval monitoring. (JINS, 2010, 16, 1006–1017.)

Keywords

Anterior communicating artery aneurysmMemory disordersNeuropsychologyCognitionFrontal lobeRecognition
Type
Symposia
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 16 , Issue 6 , November 2010 , pp. 1006 - 1017
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A., & Wilson, B.A. (1988). Frontal amnesia and the dysexecutive syndrome. Brain and Cognition, 7, 212–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, P.W., & McNeil, J.E. (1999). Content-specific confabulation. Cortex, 35, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, P.W., & Shallice, T. (1996). Confabulation and the control of recollection. Memory, 4, 359–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciaramelli, E., & Ghetti, S. (2007). What are confabulators’ memories made of? A study of subjective and objective measures of recollection in confabulation. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1489–1500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciaramelli, E., Ghetti, S., & Borsotti, M. (2009). Divided attention during retrieval suppresses false recognition in confabulation. Cortex, 45, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciaramelli, E., Ghetti, S., Frattarelli, M., & Ladavas, E. (2006). When true memory availability promotes false memory: Evidence from confabulating patients. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1866–1877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, M.A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 594–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Barba, G. (1993a). Confabulation: Knowledge and recollective experience. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Barba, G. (1993b). Different patterns of confabulation. Cortex, 29, 567–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalla Barba, G., Cappelletti, J.Y., Signorini, M., & Denes, G. (1997). Confabulation: Remembering “another” past, planning “another” future. Neurocase, 3, 425–436.Google Scholar
Damasio, A.R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 351, 1413–1420.Google ScholarPubMed
Damasio, A.R., Graff-Radford, N.R., Eslinger, P.J., Damasio, H., & Kassell, N. (1985). Amnesia following basal forebrain lesions. Archives of Neurology, 42, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delbecq-Derouesne, J., Beauvois, M.F., & Shallice, T. (1990). Preserved recall versus impaired recognition. Brain, 113, 1045–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, T.D., & Mattson, M.E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R.S., Alexander, M.P., D’Esposito, M., & Otto, R. (1995). Neuropsychological and neuroanatomical correlates of confabulation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fotopoulou, A., Conway, M.A., Griffiths, P., Birchall, D., & Tyrer, S. (2007). Self-enhancing confabulation: Revisiting the motivational hypothesis. Neurocase, 13, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fotopoulou, A., Solms, M., & Turnbull, O. (2004). Wishful reality distortions in confabulation: A case report. Neuropsychologia, 42, 727–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilboa, A., Alain, C., He, Y., Stuss, D.T., & Moscovitch, M. (2009). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions produce early functional alterations during remote memory retrieval. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 4871–4881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilboa, A., Alain, C., Stuss, D.T., Melo, B., Miller, S., & Moscovitch, M. (2006). Mechanisms of spontaneous confabulations: A strategic retrieval account. Brain, 129, 1399–1414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilboa, A., & Moscovitch, M. (2002). The cognitive neuroscience of confabulation: A review and a model. In Baddeley, A., Kopelman, M.D., & Wilson, B.A. (Eds.), The handbook of memory disorders (pp. 315–342). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.K. (1991). Reality monitoring: Evidence from confabulation in organic brain disease patients. In Prigatano, G.P. & Schacter, D.L. (Eds.), Awareness of deficit after brain injury (pp. 176–197). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.K. (1997). Source monitoring and memory distortion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 352, 1733–1745.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M.K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D.S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M.K., Hayes, S.M., D’Esposito, M., & Raye, C.L. (2000). Confabulation. In Boller, F., Grafman, J. & Cermak, L.S. (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 383–407). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.K., O’Connor, M., & Cantor, J. (1997). Confabulation, memory deficits, and frontal dysfunction. Brain and Cognition, 34, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M.K., & Reeder, J.A. (1997). Consciousness as meta-processing. In Cohen, J.D. & Schooler, J.W. (Eds.), Scientific approaches to consciousness (pp. 261–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kopelman, M.D. (1987). Two types of confabulation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 50, 1482–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kopelman, M.D. (1999). Varieties of false memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3–5, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopelman, M.D., Ng, N., & Van Den Brouke, O. (1997). Confabulation extending across episodic, personal, and general semantic memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 683–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsakoff, S.S. (1889/1996). Medico-psychological study of a memory disorder. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacMillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Melo, B., Winocur, G., & Moscovitch, M. (1999). False recall and false recognition: An examination of the effects of selective and combined lesions to the medial temporal lobe/diencephalon and frontal lobe structures. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, K., Langdon, R., & Coltheart, M. (2007). Models of confabulation: A critical review and a new framework. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, B., & Petrides, M. (1984). Behavioural effects of frontal-lobe lesions in man. Trends in Neurosciences, 7, 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, K.J., & Johnson, M.K. (2009). Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 638–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moscovitch, M. (1989). Confabulation and the frontal system: Strategic vs. associative retrieval in neuropsychological theories of memory. In Roediger, H.L. & Craik, F.I.M. (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 133–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moscovitch, M., & Melo, B. (1997). Strategic retrieval and the frontal lobes: Evidence from confabulation and amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1017–1034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (2002). The frontal cortex and working with memory. In Stuss, D.T. & Knight, M. (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 188–209). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H., & Reder, L.M. (2004). Moses illusion. In Pohl, R.F. (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (pp. 275–291). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Reder, L.M., & Kusbit, G.W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnider, A. (2008). The confabulating mind: How the brain creates reality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnider, A., Gutbrod, K., Hess, C.W., & Schroth, G. (1996). Memory without context: Amnesia with confabulations after infarction of the right capsular genu. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 61, 186–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnider, A., & Ptak, R. (1999). Spontaneous confabulators fail to suppress currently irrelevant memory traces. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 677–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnider, A., von Daniken, C., & Gutbrod, K. (1996). The mechanisms of spontaneous and provoked confabulations. Brain, 119, 1365–1375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talland, G.A. (1965). Deranged memory: A psychonomic study of the amnesic syndrome. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M.S., Cipolotti, L., Yousry, T.A., & Shallice, T. (2008). Confabulation: Damage to a specific inferior medial prefrontal system. Cortex, 44, 637–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Jaarsveld, H.J., Dijkstra, T., & Hermans, D. (1997). The detection of semantic illusions: Task-specific effects for similarity and position of distorted terms. Psychological Research, 59, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oostendorp, H., & De Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 74, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volz, K.G., & von Cramon, D.Y. (2009). How the orbitofrontal cortex contributes to decision making: A view from neuroscience. In Rabb, M., Johnson, J.G. & Heekeren, H.R. (Eds.), Mind and motion: The bidirectional link between thought and action (pp. 61–72). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zannino, G.D., Barban, F., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G.A. (2008). Do confabulators really try to remember when they confabulate? A case report. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 831–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed