People            Courses

 

Publications

 

The manuscripts below are copyrighted and should only be downloaded if your institution has a subscription. See publication list organized by date or topic. For related materials, see Scripts and Stimuli and Conference Abstracts.

 

Is recollection a threshold (all–or–none) or a continuous (graded) process?

The minority view, championed by Andrew Yonelinas, is that recollection is a threshold process. For a representative publication, see Yonelinas (1999).

 

The majority/our view is that recollection is a continuous process, which is supported by the following publications:

Slotnick, S. D., Klein, S. A., Dodson, C. S., & Shimamura, A.P. (2000). An analysis of signal detection and threshold models of source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1499–1517.

 

Slotnick, S. D., & Dodson, C. S. (2005). Support for a continuous (single–process) model of recognition memory and source memory. Memory & Cognition, 33, 151–170.

 

Dodson, C. S., Bawa, S., & Slotnick, S. D. (2007). Aging, source memory, and misrecollections. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 169–181.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2010). "Remember" source memory ROCs indicate recollection is a continuous process. Memory, 18, 27–39.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). The nature of recollection in behavior and the brain. NeuroReport, 24, 663–670.

 

Slotnick, S. D., Jeye, B. M., & Dodson, C. S. (2016). Recollection is a continuous process: Evidence from plurality memory receiver operating characteristics. Memory, 1, 2–11.

 

Jeye, B. M., Karanian, J. M., & Slotnick, S. D. (2016). Spatial memory activity distributions indicate the hippocampus operates in a continuous manner. Brain Sciences, 6, 37.

 

 

Do different medial temporal lobe sub–regions have the same function or separate functions during item memory and context memory?

The minority view, championed by Larry Squire, is that they have the same function. For a representative publication, see Squire et al. (2004).

 

The majority/our view is that they have separate functions, which is supported by the following publications:

Ross, R. S., & Slotnick, S. D. (2008). The hippocampus is preferentially associated with memory for spatial context. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 432–446.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2010). Does the hippocampus mediate objective binding or subjective remembering? NeuroImage, 49, 1769–1776.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). The nature of recollection in behavior and the brain. NeuroReport, 24, 663–670.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). Controversies in Cognitive Neuroscience. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapter 4, Long–term memory and the medial temporal lobe)

 

 

Are the dorsal prefrontal cortex and ventral prefrontal cortex associated with spatial working memory and object working memory, respectively?

The minority view, championed by Bradley Postle, is that they are not. For a representative publication, see Postle et al. (2000).

 

The majority/our view is that they are, which is supported by the following publications:

Slotnick, S. D. (2005). Spatial working memory specific activity in dorsal prefrontal cortex? Disparate answers from fMRI beta–weight and timecourse analysis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 905–920. (This paper reanalyzed data from Postle et al., 2000, which reported null findings, and found significant spatial working memory activity in dorsal prefrontal cortex)

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2005). Valid fMRI timecourse analysis with tasks containing temporal dependencies. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 925–927.

(This paper was a response to Postle, 2005, which responded to the above paper)

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). Controversies in Cognitive Neuroscience. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapter 5, Working memory segregation in the frontal cortex)

 

 

Can spatial attention rapidly modulate activity in primary visual cortex (V1)?

The majority view, championed by Steven Hillyard, is that it can not. For a representative publication, see Martinez et al. (1999).

 

The minority/our view is that it can, which is supported by the following publications:

Slotnick, S. D., Hopfinger, J. B., Klein, S. A., & Sutter, E. E. (2002). Darkness beyond the light: attentional inhibition surrounding the classic spotlight. NeuroReport, 13, 773–778.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). Controversies in Cognitive Neuroscience. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapter 3, The nature of attentional modulation in V1)

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2018). The experimental parameters that affect attentional modulation of the ERP C1 component. Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 53–61.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2018). Several studies with significant C1 attention effects survive critical analysis. Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 75–85.

 

 

Is the fusiform face area (FFA) a face processing module?

The majority view, championed by Nancy Kanwisher, is that the FFA is a module. For a representative publication, see Kanwisher (2010).

 

The minority/our view is that the FFA is not a module and face processing is distributed across many cortical regions, like other objects, which is illustrated in the following publications:

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). Controversies in Cognitive Neuroscience. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapter 2, The fusiform face area)

 

Slotnick, S. D., & White, R. C. (2013). The fusiform face area responds equivalently to faces and abstract shapes in the left and central visual fields. NeuroImage, 83, 408–417.

 

 

Can visual mental imagery activate primary visual cortex (V1)?

The minority view, which is championed by Zenon Pylyshyn, is that it can not. For a representative publication, see Pylyshyn (2002).

 

The majority/our view is that it can, which is supported by the following publications:

Slotnick, S. D., Thompson, W. L., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Visual mental imagery induces retinotopically organized activation of early visual areas. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1570–1583. 

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2013). Controversies in Cognitive Neuroscience. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapter 7, Can visual mental images be pictorial?)

 

 

Are standard methods to correct for multiple comparisons in fMRI analysis valid?

The minority view, championed by Thomas Nichols, is that standard methods are not valid. For a representative publication, see Anders et al. (2016).

 

The majority/our view is that standard methods are valid, which is supported by the following publications:

Slotnick, S. D. (2017). Resting–state fMRI data reflects default network activity rather than null data: A defense of commonly employed methods to correct for multiple comparisons. Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 141–143.

 

Slotnick, S. D. (2017). Cluster success: fMRI inferences for spatial extent have acceptable false–positive rates. Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 150–155. (This paper was a response to Nichols et al., 2017, and other commentaries, which responded to the above paper)