ERP effects at encoding: Image memorability or recognition success?

Overview

1. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,603 E Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820 USA
2. Program in Neuroscience, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,Champaign, IL USA
3. Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois,Champaign, IL USA

Abstract

The subsequent memory effect (SME) refers to neural patterns (e.g., in EEG or fMRI) at encoding that predict later memory performance. In N400-based SMEs, for example, items later remembered elicit less negative N400 amplitudes at encoding compared to items later forgotten. These effects have traditionally been interpreted as reflecting idiosyncratic neural states during encoding—in the case of the N400, states related to semantic activation—that influence episodic encoding success. However, recent work on memorability, a stable, item-level property indicating the population-level likelihood that an image will be remembered, has shown that high (compared to low) memorability images elicit less negative N400 amplitudes, suggesting that memorability is linked to more targeted semantic mapping. This raises the question of whether encoding-related effects are more tied to intrinsic stimulus properties or in-the-moment encoding variability. The present study examined both factors in tandem: ERPs were recorded while participants viewed images varying in memorability and were later classified by recognition outcome (hit vs. miss). Analyses revealed that N400 amplitudes were significantly predicted by memorability scores even when controlling for subsequent memory performance. Memorability also predicted Late Positive Complex SMEs. These findings suggest that neural activity traditionally associated with later memory success may capture item-level properties rather than transient encoding states. Consequently, memorability appears to be a key driver of differences in memory performance, challenging interpretations of SMEs as purely state-dependent and highlighting the importance of considering intrinsic stimulus characteristics when evaluating effects correlated with memory success.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Code

The paper says that its authors' code is available on request: it was not published with the paper, so there is nothing to verify.

Code availability

Analysis code of this study is available upon request.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Tracing map

A tracing map links a paper to the code its authors published: this paper has none (its code is available on request), so it has no map.

Data

No dataset and no data link were found in the paper.

Open practices statement

Data or materials for the experiments are available upon request. The experiment was not preregistered.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 29 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 2 authors, 4 keywords, 15 MeSH terms, 1 funder, 85 references.

Cite

This paper

Deng, W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2026). ERP effects at encoding: Image memorability or recognition success? Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 26(4), 1651-1665. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-026-01427-z

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1162/imag.a.1228 [code]

A unique neural signature of long-term memory encoding from EEG inter-electrode correlation.

Journal: Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: EEG, cognitive, 5 references

[2] doi:10.1073/pnas.2530745123 [code]

Reverse engineering what makes a symbol memorable.

Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

In common: cognitive, 5 references

[3] doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013448

The speed limit of visual perception: Bidirectional influence of image memorability and processing speed on perceived duration and recognition.

Journal: PLoS computational biology

In common: cognitive, 4 references

[4] doi:10.1111/ejn.70664

Electrophysiological Correlates of Encoding Indicate Altered Processing but Comparable Subsequent Memory Effects Across Virtual Reality and Desktop-Based Conditions.

Journal: The European journal of neuroscience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 4 references

[5] doi:10.1111/psyp.70306 [code]

From Feedback-Learning to Semantic Memory: Can Feedback-Related Brain Activity Predict Object-Word Associations?

Journal: Psychophysiology

In common: EEG, cognitive, 4 references

[6] doi:10.1162/nol.a.264 [code]

The Temporal Dynamics of the Labeling Algorithm During Natural Language Comprehension: Neural Evidence for Phrase Grammatical Type Generation.

Journal: Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: EEG, 5 references

[7] doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117159

Ultraslow brain dynamics as neurophysiological markers of information sampling during learning.

Journal: iScience

In common: EEG, cognitive, 4 references

[8] doi:10.1093/cercor/bhag075 [code]

Cortical dynamics of icon perception: effects of concreteness and attractiveness.

Journal: Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)

In common: cognitive, 3 references

[9] doi:10.1186/s40359-026-04717-w

Target detection enhances relational processing of background items: evidence from associative recognition paradigms and EEG.

Journal: BMC psychology

In common: EEG, cognitive, 3 references

[10] doi:10.1002/dneu.70027

The Intriguingly Social N400 of Preverbal Infants.

Journal: Developmental neurobiology

In common: EEG, 3 references

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.