Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
• We studied how personal relevance affects ERP correlates of encoding and retrieval. • Unintentional encoding is more elaborate when focused on the self than on others. • Personal relevance shapes both conscious recollection and post-recognition monitoring. • These processes are similar for words encoded in relation to the self and a close other. • However, they differ when comparing the self with an unrelated individual. Relating information to oneself is an effective encoding strategy that increases the likelihood of remembering and recalling information. Evidence suggests that self-focused encoding results in heightened brain activity compared to other encoding strategies. However, findings regarding the neural correlates underlying the retrieval of self-referentially encoded information have been inconsistent. The main aim of this ERP study was to investigate the neural correlates associated with the recognition of information encoded in reference to the self, personally relevant others (a close other), and personally irrelevant others (a famous person). We hypothesized that the pattern of ERP findings during encoding and retrieval would be modulated by the subjective significance of the other. Initially, participants determined whether trait adjectives were appropriate for describing the self, a close other, or a famous person, and later classified words as either old (previously encountered) or new. Self-focused encoding was associated with increased LPP amplitudes compared to both the close other and famous person conditions, which also differed from each other. At recognition, the amplitudes of the recollection-related LPC and monitoring-related RFE were higher for self-referentially encoded words compared to those encoded in relation to a famous person. However, there was no difference in LPC and RFE amplitudes between trait adjectives encoded in reference to the self and to a close other, suggesting that the subjective significance of newly encoded information shapes the recognition process.
Nowicka et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: