The autobiographical IAT (aIAT) is an implicit behavioral instrument that can detect autobiographical memories encoded in an individual's mind by measuring how quickly this person can categorize and associate sentences related to a specific event with the logical dimensions true and false. Faster categorization when an event (e.g., I went to Paris) is associated with the dimension true than false indicates that that specific event is encoded as true in the individual's mind. The aim of this study is to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of the aIAT, used as a memory-detection technique (i.e., to identify which of two events is true). To this end, we recorded ERPs while participants performed an aIAT assessing which of two playing cards they had previously selected. We found an increased N200 and a decreased LPC (or P300) at the fronto-central sites when participants associated the selected playing card with the dimension false than true. Notably, both components have been previously and consistently reported in studies investigating deception. These results suggest that associating a true autobiographical event with the concept of false may involve the same cognitive processes associated with deception.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,400,542
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,990
of 7,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,737
of 336,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#65
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
