Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Top, Trial procedure for one study-test cycle. The example shows an “old” test voice presented with a different sentence than at study. Bottom, The 12 study-test cycles for same and different sentence blocks, respectively.
- Figure 2.
Mean d′ for voice recognition in the same and different sentence conditions for both block halves (A) and collapsed over pairs of consecutive study-test cycles (B). Error bars indicate SEM.
- Figure 3.
Grand mean ERPs during study phases for subsequently remembered voices (hits) and forgotten voices (misses) when tested with the same or different sentences than during study.
- Figure 4.
Voltage maps of ERP differences for the Dm (study voices subsequently remembered − subsequently forgotten), reflecting subsequent voice recognition, are depicted for time windows of the Dm I (250–400 ms), Dm II (400–800 ms), and Dm III (800–1400 ms). Note that maps are based on spherical spline interpolation with 90° equidistant projection.
- Figure 5.
Grand mean ERPs at Pz during test phases for voices correctly recognized (hits) as old and correctly rejected as new.
- Figure 6.
Results of the time-frequency analyses. A, Significant time and frequency ranges (p-values) obtained from permutation tests. Only results with more than 10 adjacent significant bins were considered. The relevant time and frequency range is marked. B, Head topography of the mean signal change, old versus new voices, at the relevant time and frequency range. Significant electrodes are marked. C, Waveforms showing the mean signal chance (16–17 Hz) for old and new voices at the central electrode group. The waveforms show an amplitude drop after ∼300 ms that was stronger for old compared with new voices. D, Same as C, but for the right temporal electrode group. E, Head topography of the mean signal change, old versus new voices, for the “same sentence” condition. F, Same as E, but for the “different sentence” condition. G, Bar graph showing the mean signal change (± SEM) in each condition at the central electrode group. H, Same as G, but at right temporal electrodes.
Tables
- Table 1.
Accuracies for hits and CR, correct RT, d′, and C for block halves, sentence conditions, and voice conditions
Block halves Sentence condition Old voices New voices d′ C Hits RT (ms) CR RT (ms) First Same 69.6% (1.7) 1574 (72) 63.1% (2.9) 1608 (75) 0.88 (0.08) 0.09 (0.05) Different 61.8% (2.6) 1494 (84) 62.8% (3.0) 1562 (73) 0.67 (0.09) −0.02 (0.06) Second Same 75.3% (2.0) 1471 (71) 70.1% (2.5) 1447 (65) 1.28 (0.10) 0.07 (0.05) Different 69.8% (2.9) 1495 (79) 65.5% (2.5) 1509 (79) 0.97 (0.10) 0.07 (0.06) SEMs are shown in parentheses.
ERP Effect df F p ηp2 Dm I (250–400 ms) Anteriority × subsequent recognition 2,46 5.54 0.011 0.194 Dm II (400–800 ms) Anteriority 2,46 44.24 <0.001 0.658 Subsequent recognition 1,23 4.45 0.046 0.162 Laterality × anteriority 4,92 4.81 0.001 0.173 Laterality × subsequent recognition 2,46 4.80 0.013 0.173 Anteriority × subsequent recognition 2,46 12.89 <0.001 0.359 Dm III (800–1400 ms) Laterality 2,46 4.03 0.024 0.149 Anteriority 2,46 23.59 <0.001 0.506 Laterality × anteriority 4,92 3.28 0.021 0.125 Laterality × subsequent recognition 2,46 3.64 0.034 0.137 Anteriority × subsequent recognition 2,46 4.01 0.032 0.148
In this issue
