PSYCH

3513 Response Paper #1 03/22/2018 Sameer Goyal

In the Schrager article, researchers used fMRI to measure brain activity during a learning

task where subjects had to determine whether or not a presented word was pleasing to hear.

Afterward, the researchers had subjects perform a recognition memory test that the subjects were

not previously aware of. Subjects would indicate their confidence that a word being presented

had shown up during the learning task. The researchers then compared the results of the

recognition memory test to the fMRI data acquired during the learning portion of the experiment.

The first major finding from the Schrager article is that activity in the prefrontal cortex, the

inferior parietal cortex, and the posterior midline including what is known as the default network

correlated inversely with high confidence responses on the recognition memory task (Schrager).

The researchers reached the conclusion that activity in these regions reflects “inattention” or

what amounts to daydreaming (Schrager). The second major finding was activity in the

hippocampus and the perirhinal cortex directly correlated with high confidence responses on the

recognition memory task (Schrager). The researchers came to the conclusion that both regions

contributed to the memory strength of the learned material (Schrager).

In the Vogel article, researchers performed a series of three experiments. In the first

experiment, subjects performed a visual memory task requiring subjects to selectively remember

some relevant objects from an array and exclude the irrelevant stimuli. Researchers performed

ERP analysis of EEG data taken from subjects as they performed the task. The result researchers

found is that ERP analysis on the trials with two distractors and two relevant objects for

individuals who have high working memory capacity closely resembled the ERP analysis

obtained during trials that only required the encoding of two objects with no distractors (Vogel).

Additionally, the ERP analysis on the trials with two distractors and two relevant objects for

people with low capacity closely resembled the ERP analysis from trails requiring the encoding
PSYCH 3513 Response Paper #1 03/22/2018 Sameer Goyal

of four objects with no distractors (Vogel). In the second experiment, researchers had subjects

perform a similar task, but indicated relevant stimuli on basis of location rather than color. The

ERP results researchers obtained from experiment two mirrored those found in the first

experiment for high memory capacity individuals. Although the ERP results researchers found

for experiment two didn’t perfectly mirror those from experiment one for low memory capacity

individuals, there was still significant evidence that the low capacity group was storing

information from the irrelevant distractors (Vogel). In the third experiment, subjects had to

remember the orientation of objects in an array. After a delay the subjects were shown another

array of relevant or irrelevant stimuli that they had to remember the orientations of only if the

stimuli were relevant. The results from the third experiment that researchers found is that people

with high memory capacity were able to exclude the irrelevant stimuli from the second array, and

the low memory capacity people were unable to exclude irrelevant stimuli (Vogel). From these

experiments researchers concluded that there is a direct relationship between memory capacity

and the ability to keep irrelevant information out of working memory (Vogel). Additionally,

researchers concluded that often people with low memory capacity encode more information in

working memory than the high capacity individuals, but much of the information stored is

irrelevant (Vogel).

When comparing the methodology used in each of these research articles it is important

to take note of the benefits and limitations of each approach. The Schrager article uses fMRI

which has a much higher spatial resolution than the ERP analysis of EEG data used in the Vogel

article. However, the EEG in the Vogel article has a much higher temporal resolution than the

fMRI in the Schrager article which allows the EEG to pick up on fluctuations in activity quickly.

The fMRI allows structures in the brain to be analyzed for activity much more clearly, and
PSYCH 3513 Response Paper #1 03/22/2018 Sameer Goyal

conclusions can be drawn about the activity of deep structures of the brain, such as the

hippocampus in the Schrager article, that would not be possible with an EEG due to the

distortions caused by the skull and the short sensitivity depth of the electrodes. It is important to

note that both techniques have a serious drawback in the fact that they do not show causation.

EEG and fMRI can only show functional correlation since there is no lesioning of the brain that

can concretely connect the regions being studied to their function in either article. The EEG

method in the Vogel article has the added drawback of only being able to pick up on brain

activity close to the surface of the skull in addition to the relatively poor spatial resolution due to

distortions. A future study could use MEG instead of EEG to avoid the distortions caused by the

skull. A question that could be addressed after reading the Schrager article is how the

intelligence of the different test subjects, such as IQ data, correlate to memory strength and

activity of different brain structures.