Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Experimental design. In session 1, participants studied a list of 20 items (object pictures), repeated four times. Scene images were presented during the ITIs. Forty-eight hours later, participants received a reminder of session 1, and then studied a different list of items. The ITIs during session 2 were empty. Forty-eight hours later, participants were shown the studied items (presented as words) from both lists, intermixed with novel items, and asked to make source memory judgments, as well as report their confidence.
- Figure 2.
PPA. The average functionally defined ROI is shown in standardized (Montreal Neurological Institute) space. The color of each voxel corresponds to the number of participants whose individual ROI (in standardized space) contained that voxel. Standardization of the ROIs (by nonlinear warping to a template) was done for illustration purposes only; the ROIs used in all our analyses were in each participant's native space.
- Figure 3.
Behavioral results. Number of items on the source memory test attributed to L1 or L2 for each list. Error bars indicate ± 1 SEM.
- Figure 4.
Neuroimaging results. A, Time course of scene classifier evidence during study of L2 items in session 2 (note that 0 s = the time of the L2 item's appearance, not adjusted for the hemodynamic response). The blue line represents L2 items subsequently misattributed to L1, and the red line represents L2 items correctly attributed to L2. The vertical line represents the trial onset. Scene evidence was operationalized as the classifier's estimate of the probability that the mental state of “scene” was present. B, Time course of scene evidence during the source memory test (session 3). The black line represents L1 items correctly attributed to L1. Error bars indicate ± 1 SEM. Asterisks indicate time points at which L2 → L1 scene evidence is significantly different from L2 → L2 scene evidence (p ≤ 0.05, two-tailed t test, using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).
- Figure 5.
A, Schematic of the confidence ratings analysis. The confidence ratings were “unfolded” into an 8-point scale ranging from “very sure L2” to “very sure L1.” A representative participant's data are shown on the right. Unfolded confidence was regressed onto scene evidence for each participant separately, and the regression coefficients were then entered into a t test. B, Strength of relationship between scene evidence during each time point of L2 study trials and unfolded confidence for L2 items. C, Strength of relationship between scene evidence during each time point of L2 test trials and unfolded confidence for L2 items. Error bars indicate ± 1 SEM. Asterisks indicate coefficients that are significantly different from 0 (p ≤ 0.05, two-tailed t test, using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).
