Introduction Neuropsychological studies of memory have shown that recollection, the subjective experience of remembering, often accompanies the recall and recognition of facts and events (also known as declarative memory), whereas other forms of memory are commonly observed in the absence of conscious remembering (Gabrieli, 1998; Mayes and Downes, 1997; Schacter et al., 1993; Squire and Schacter, 2002). People typically exhibit conscious memory when they recognize that a specific stimulus had been presented earlier, and perceptualpriming when processing of that stimulus is otherwise altered in certain ways due to its prior presentation, sometimes with no recollection of that prior episode. Patients with amnesia may be poor at recollecting faces, but like people without a memory disorder, they respond faster during an implicit memory test to recently viewed faces than to new faces (Paller et al., 1992). This pattern of performance is known as preserved priming in amnesia (Schacter and

iteria. Declarative Memory Observations of preserved and impaired memory in patients with amnesia indicate that the recall and recognition of facts and episodes, or declarative memory, is dependent on a particular subset of brain regions and can be disrupted selectively. How can we develop a better understanding of this selectivity? Indeed, one might pose the question: Why is declarative memory different from all other forms of memory? Here are four answers to this question: 1. Because declarative memory has distinct behavioral characteristics. 2. Because declarative memory has distinct subjective characteristics. 3. Because declarative memory has a distinct cognitive structure. 4. Because declarative memory has distinct neural substrates. Memory theorists tend to give one or another of these answers greater emphasis, as discussed further below. In any event, determi

At a glance, one can often determine whether a face belongs to a known individual. To investigate brain mechanisms underlying this memory feat, we recorded EEG signals time-locked to face presentations. In the study phase, 40 unknown faces were presented, 20 of which were accompanied by a voice simulating that person speaking. Instructions were to remember the faces with spoken biographical Z. Z. information R-faces and to forget the others F-faces . In the test phase, famous and non-famous faces were presented in a visually degraded manner. Subjects made two-choice fame judgments and priming was observed in the form of faster and more accurate responses for old than for new non-famous faces. Priming did not differ between R-faces and F-faces. In a second experiment, faces were not degraded at test and behavioral responses were made only when faces were presented twice in immediate succession. Brain potentials elicited 300 to 900 ms after stimulus onset from frontal and parieto-occipital scalp regions were larger for R-faces than for F-faces. Recognition tested later was more accurate for R-faces than for F-faces. Because the study-phase manipulation influenced recognition but not priming, we conclude that this procedure succeeded in isolating neural correlates of recollective processing from more automatic uses of face memory as indexed by priming. q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Results from recent neuroimaging studies have led to a controversy as to whether right or left prefrontal regions are relatively more important for episodic retrieval. To address this issue, we recorded event-related brain potentials during two recognition tests with identical stimuli but differing retrieval demands. In both tests, participants viewed a sequence of object drawings, half of which were identical to ones viewed earlier except for a change in size and half of which were new. Instructions were to discriminate between old and Z. Z. new objects general test or to additionally decide whether old objects were larger or smaller at study specific test . Frontal brain potentials that were more positive during the specific than during the general test for both old and new objects were interpreted as neural correlates of the process by which specific attributes of test cues are compared with information retrieved from memory. Another ERP difference between the specific and general tests, which was observed for old objects only, had a left posterior scalp topography and was interpreted to reflect the reactivation of memories for studied objects. Frontal and posterior potentials thus reflected two memory processes important for accurate episodic retrieval. Furthermore, our findings suggest that both left and right prefrontal regions were engaged when demands to retrieve and evaluate perceptual information increased. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

this article should be addressed to Sabine Windmann, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Fakultat fu r Psychologie, AE Biopsychologie, GAFO 05, Bochum, Germany D-44780. Email: Sabine .Windmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2002, Vol. 111, No. 2, 357--369 0021-843X/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-843X.111.2.357 357 cortex in patients with panic disorder (see also Kaschka, Feistel, & Ebert, 1995; Malizia et al., 1998). This finding suggests that the specific contribution of inferior frontal cortex regions to the development of clinical anxiety may involve a deficit in inhibitory neural activity (see also Crestani et al., 1999)