Influence of self-centred spatial information on episodic memory

1. Influence of self-centred spatial information on episodic memory

2. Link between space processing and episodic memory: The allocentric representation Nadel, & Moscovitch, (1998): • the place cells, • map specific locations. • Binding process held by allocentric representation: • Object-to-object space processing. O’Keefe, & Dostrovsky, (1971), Nadel, & O’keefe, (1978)

3. Episodic memory • Episodic memory’s conception has evolved: • From contextual memory located in space and time • To • autonoetic awareness • mental travel in time • relation to the self • And also... • Semantic visual re-experiencing from observer perspective. • Episodic visual re-experiencing from field perspective Tulving, (2001) Crawley, & French, (2005):

4. Beside allocentric and egocentric representation,navigational representations ? • Episodic memory held by navigational representation ? • Self-to-environment space processing. Route finding, Path integration Make use of relative movement information: (Ideothetic and allothetic) Aguirre, & D’Esposito, (1999), Wishaw, Mckenna, & Maaswinkel, (1997), Etienne, & Jeffery, (2004)

5. Goals • Which spatial representation is at the root of Episodic memory? • Allocentric : Object-to-object space processing. • vs • Navigational : Self-to-environment space processing.

6. Experiment design and hypothesis • Encoding of items to be remembered (bird names) • In the frame of a task maximizing: • Allocentric processing or • Navigational processing

7. Experiment design and hypothesis • During learning phase emphasizing space processing via: • Navigation “frame task” • allocentric “frame task” • Memory test • Assessing episodic memory with Recall, Recognition, and source-monitoring. • Non spatial memory (i.e. memory of bird names). • Remember-Know-Guess paradigm. Gardiner, (2001)

8. Training session : Frames tasks only • Training participants with the two spatial tasks: • Navigation processing • Allocentric processing • In this session there is no items to be remembered (bird names), the aim is only to train participants with the two frame tasks.

9. Allocentric frame task training

10. Allocentric frame task training • Participants necessarily have to process object-to-object relations.

11. Navigation frame task training (1)

12. Navigation frame task training (2) • Participants necessarily have to process self-to-environment relations.

13. Learning phase 2 conditions: Navigation / Allocentric frame. 14 bird names in each condition, randomly intermixed. Presentation of items to be learned are identical on physical characteristics in both conditions. Conditions differ on the spatial processing participants are involved in at the time of the presentation of the bird names (in the frame of maximizing allocentric vs navigational processing).

14. Item study within an allocentric frame task

15. Item study within a navigation frame task (2)

16. Memory test • After 4 hours, 3 tests: • Free recall test associated to RKG • Recognition test associated to RKG • Source monitoring test

17. Results: Main effects Free recall: Navigation (3,68) > Allocentric (2,00) [ p <0.0001] Recognition: Navigation (10,3) > Allocentric (8,8) [ p <0.01] Source-monitoring: Navigation (6,4) > Allocentric (4,7) [ p <0.001]

18. Recognition ** ** NS NS NS NS Results: Interaction and planned comparisons Free recall

19. Discussion More words correctly recalled, recognized and source-monitored in the Navigation condition than in the Allocentric one. Critically, this advantage is observed mainly for Remember responses (R), eliciting autonoetic awareness. A navigational component is critical for episodic memory.

20. Discussion Navigational component: a new referential? Or a referential translation system? Becker & Burgess, 2001 Encoding and retrieval of the spatial context

21. Discussion Navigational component: a new referential? Or a referential translation system? Need for a specific memory capacity of referential translation system/process.

22. Thank You!