, 1980). The average numbers of trials containing recalled and forgotten words were respectively

51 and 36, with negligible differences across experimental conditions. For cue-related activity, waveforms were quantified by measuring mean amplitudes in the 300–1000, 1000–2000, and 2000–2400 msec latency intervals following cue onset. www.selleckchem.com/products/Trichostatin-A.html Encoding-related activity elicited by words was quantified by measuring mean amplitudes in the 700–1200 and 1200–1900 msec intervals following word onset. The Results section provides a justification for these intervals. The analyses were performed across 26 electrode sites to assess scalp distribution differences across anterior and posterior sites (cf. Galli et al., 2011, 2012). The analyses of variance (ANOVAs) incorporated factors of scalp location (anterior/posterior) and electrode site (13 locations) in addition to the experimental factors of subsequent memory

(recalled/forgotten), discrimination difficulty (easy/difficult) and stimulus modality (visual/auditory). Greenhouse–Geisser corrections were used for violations of sphericity (Keselman and Rogan, 1980). Lower order interactions were not considered in the presence of higher order interactions and only effects involving subsequent memory are reported. On average, 55.9% (SD = 15.3) of visual words were recalled following easy cue discriminations and 55.6% (SD = 14.1) following difficult cue discriminations. For auditory words, these values were respectively 57.9% (SD = 13.1) and 56.2%

(SD = 11.9). A repeated measures ANOVA with factors of discrimination difficulty (easy/difficult) and stimulus modality (visual/auditory) did not suggest significant differences in recall buy SP600125 (p > .368). Fig. 2 shows the number of visual and auditory words recalled from each of the 16 positions in the easy and difficult discrimination lists. When the factor of list position was added to the ANOVA described above, a significant main effect of position emerged [Greenhouse–Geisser corrected F(7.04, 189.95) = 16.44, p < .001]. Confirming the visual impression of a primacy effect, pairwise comparisons on consecutive list positions indicated that recall was enhanced for words in the first four positions (p < .014; other p > .105). The ANOVA also showed a significant interaction between list position and stimulus modality [F(10.35, Methamphetamine 279.40) = 1.99, p = .032]. This appeared to reflect the slightly higher recall of auditory than visual words from middle portions of the lists. During list learning, responses to prestimulus cues were more accurate and faster in the easy than difficult discrimination conditions (respectively 88.0% vs 83.7% and 822 vs 858 msec; Fig. 3). It also took on average less time to respond to visual than auditory cues (702 vs 978 msec). A repeated measures ANOVA on accuracy rates showed a main effect of discrimination difficulty [F(1, 27) = 8.76, p = .006]. This effect was also significant in the ANOVA on response times [F(1, 27) = 13.66, p = .