A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

An event-related potential investigation of the processing of Remember/Forget cues and item encoding in item-method directed forgetting. | LitMetric

This study examined the electrophysiological correlates of the processing of the Remember/Forget cues and the successful encoding of study items in item-method directed forgetting. Subjects engaged in an old/new recognition test and an item-method directed forgetting task. Event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to study items and Remember/Forget cues were compared according to the subsequent recognition performance. A reliable subsequent memory effect was elicited by the study items in the old/new recognition test. In contrast, the study items in the directed forgetting task did not yield reliable subsequent memory effects. Importantly, the Remember/Forget cues gave rise to ERPs that were predictive of the subsequent recognition performance to the study items preceding the cues. The subsequent memory effect elicited by the Remember cues was more sustained than that elicited by the Forget cues and showed distinct scalp distribution during the extended period. These results suggest that study items in the directed forgetting task are maintained in short-term memory with minimal further processing until the presentation of the Remember/Forget cues. In addition, the encoding mechanisms engaged by Remember cues and Forget cues are not entirely equivalent.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.11.016DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

study items
24
remember/forget cues
20
directed forgetting
20
item-method directed
12
forgetting task
12
subsequent memory
12
cues
10
processing remember/forget
8
old/new recognition
8
recognition test
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!