Age-related increases in false recognition: the role of perceptual and conceptual similarity

Older adults (OAs) are more likely to falsely recognize novel events than young adults, and recent behavioral and neuroimaging evidence points to a reduced ability to distinguish overlapping information due to decline in hippocampal pattern separation. However, other data suggest a critical role for semantic similarity. Koutstaal et al. [(2003) false recognition of abstract vs. common objects in older and younger adults: testing the semantic categorization account, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 29, 499-510] reported that OAs were only vulnerable to false recognition of items with pre-existing semantic representations. We replicated Koutstaal et al.'s (2003) second experiment and examined the influence of independently rated perceptual and conceptual similarity between stimuli and lures. At study, young and OAs judged the pleasantness of pictures of abstract (unfamiliar) and concrete (familiar) items, followed by a surprise recognition test including studied items, similar lures, and novel unrelated items. Experiment 1 used dichotomous "old/new" responses at test, while in Experiment 2 participants were also asked to judge lures as "similar," to increase explicit demands on pattern separation. In both experiments, OAs showed a greater increase in false recognition for concrete than abstract items relative to the young, replicating Koutstaal et al.'s (2003) findings. However, unlike in the earlier study, there was also an age-related increase in false recognition of abstract lures when multiple similar images had been studied. In line with pattern separation accounts of false recognition, OAs were more likely to misclassify concrete lures with high and moderate, but not low degrees of rated similarity to studied items. Results are consistent with the view that OAs are particularly susceptible to semantic interference in recognition memory, and with the possibility that this reflects age-related decline in pattern separation

A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: design as search and exploration

This paper reports findings from the first systematic review of protocol studies focusing specifically on conceptual design cognition, aiming to answer the following research question: What is our current understanding of the cognitive processes involved in conceptual design tasks carried out by individual designers? We reviewed 47 studies on architectural design, engineering design and product design engineering. This paper reports 24 cognitive processes investigated in a subset of 33 studies aligning with two viewpoints on the nature of designing: (V1) design as search (10 processes, 41.7%); and (V2) design as exploration (14 processes, 58.3%). Studies on search focused on solution search and problem structuring, involving: long-term memory retrieval; working memory; operators and reasoning processes. Studies on exploration investigated: co-evolutionary design; visual reasoning; cognitive actions; and unexpected discovery and situated requirements invention. Overall, considerable conceptual and terminological differences were observed among the studies. Nonetheless, a common focus on memory, semantic, associative, visual perceptual and mental imagery processes was observed to an extent. We suggest three challenges for future research to advance the field: (i) developing general models/theories; (ii) testing protocol study findings using objective methods conducive to larger samples and (iii) developing a shared ontology of cognitive processes in design

Genome-wide analysis of self-reported risk-taking behaviour and cross-disorder genetic correlations in the UK Biobank cohort

Risk-taking behaviour is a key component of several psychiatric disorders and could influence lifestyle choices such as smoking, alcohol use, and diet. As a phenotype, risk-taking behaviour therefore fits within a Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approach, whereby identifying genetic determinants of this trait has the potential to improve our understanding across different psychiatric disorders. Here we report a genome-wide association study in 116,255 UK Biobank participants who responded yes/no to the question “Would you consider yourself a risk taker?” Risk takers (compared with controls) were more likely to be men, smokers, and have a history of psychiatric disorder. Genetic loci associated with risk-taking behaviour were identified on chromosomes 3 (rs13084531) and 6 (rs9379971). The effects of both lead SNPs were comparable between men and women. The chromosome 3 locus highlights CADM2, previously implicated in cognitive and executive functions, but the chromosome 6 locus is challenging to interpret due to the complexity of the HLA region. Risk-taking behaviour shared significant genetic risk with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as with smoking and total obesity. Despite being based on only a single question, this study furthers our understanding of the biology of risk-taking behaviour, a trait that has a major impact on a range of common physical and mental health disorders

Genome-wide analysis in UK Biobank identifies four loci associated with mood instability and genetic correlation with MDD, anxiety disorder and schizophrenia

Mood instability is a core clinical feature of affective and psychotic disorders. In keeping with the Research Domain Criteria approach, it may be a useful construct for identifying biology that cuts across psychiatric categories. We aimed to investigate the biological validity of a simple measure of mood instability and evaluate its genetic relationship with several psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD), schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of mood instability in 53,525 cases and 60,443 controls from UK Biobank, identifying four independently associated loci (on chromosomes 8, 9, 14 and 18), and a common single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based heritability estimate of ~8%. We found a strong genetic correlation between mood instability and MDD (r g = 0.60, SE = 0.07, p = 8.95 × 10−17) and a small but significant genetic correlation with both schizophrenia (r g = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p = 0.01) and anxiety disorders (r g = 0.28, SE = 0.14, p = 0.04), although no genetic correlation with BD, ADHD or PTSD was observed. Several genes at the associated loci may have a role in mood instability, including the DCC netrin 1 receptor (DCC) gene, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2B subunit beta (eIF2B2), placental growth factor (PGF) and protein tyrosine phosphatase, receptor type D (PTPRD). Strengths of this study include the very large sample size, but our measure of mood instability may be limited by the use of a single question. Overall, this work suggests a polygenic basis for mood instability. This simple measure can be obtained in very large samples; our findings suggest that doing so may offer the opportunity to illuminate the fundamental biology of mood regulation

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

Cortical pattern separation and item-specific memory encoding

Pattern separation and pattern completion are fundamental brain processes thought to be critical for episodic memory encoding and retrieval, and for discrimination between similar memories. These processes are best understood in the hippocampus, but are proposed to occur throughout the brain, in particular in sensory regions. Cortical, as well as hippocampal, pattern separation may therefore support formation of event-unique memory traces. Using fMRI, we investigated cortical pattern separation and pattern completion and their relationship to encoding activity predicting subsequent item-specific compared to gist memory. During scanning, participants viewed images of novel objects, repeated objects, and objects which were both perceptually and conceptually similar to previously presented images, while performing a size judgement task. In a later surprise recognition test, they judged whether test items were ‘same’ ‘similar’ or ‘new’ relative to studied items. Activity consistent with pattern separation – responses to similar items as if novel – was observed in bilateral occipito-temporal cortex. Activity consistent with pattern completion – responses to similar items as if repeated – was observed in left prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Curve fitting analysis further revealed that graded responses to change in image conceptual and perceptual similarity in bilateral prefrontal and right parietal regions met specific computational predictions for pattern separation for one or both of these similarity dimensions. Functional overlap between encoding activity predicting subsequent item-specific recognition and pattern separation activity was also observed in left occipital cortex and bilateral inferior frontal cortex. The findings suggest that extrahippocampal regions including sensory and prefrontal cortex contribute to pattern separation and pattern completion of visual input, consistent with the proposal that cortical pattern separation contributes to formation of item-specific memory traces, facilitating accurate recognition memory

BIOFRAG - a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Peer reviewe

BIOFRAG – a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies have produced complex results that are challenging to synthesize. Inconsistencies among studies may result from variation in the choice of landscape metrics and response variables, which is often compounded by a lack of key statistical or methodological information. Collating primary datasets on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in a consistent and flexible database permits simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. We present a relational database that links such field data to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes, and environmental characteristics. Field assessments include measurements of the response(s) (e.g., presence, abundance, ground cover) of one or more species linked to plots in fragments within a partially forested landscape. The database currently holds 9830 unique species recorded in plots of 58 unique landscapes in six of eight realms: mammals 315, birds 1286, herptiles 460, insects 4521, spiders 204, other arthropods 85, gastropods 70, annelids 8, platyhelminthes 4, Onychophora 2, vascular plants 2112, nonvascular plants and lichens 320, and fungi 449. Three landscapes were sampled as long-term time series (>10 years). Seven hundred and eleven species are found in two or more landscapes. Consolidating the substantial amount of primary data available on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in the context of land-use change and natural disturbances is an essential part of understanding the effects of increasing anthropogenic pressures on land. The consistent format of this database facilitates testing of generalizations concerning biologic responses to fragmentation across diverse systems and taxa. It also allows the re-examination of existing datasets with alternative landscape metrics and robust statistical methods, for example, helping to address pseudo-replication problems. The database can thus help researchers in producing broad syntheses of the effects of land use. The database is dynamic and inclusive, and contributions from individual and large-scale data-collection efforts are welcome.Keywords: Species turnover, Data sharing, Database, Global change, Landscape metrics, Edge effects, Forest fragmentation, Matrix contrast, Bioinformatic

Supplement 1. Raw data used in statistical analysis of Greater Rhea habitat models.

<h2>File List</h2><blockquote> <p><a href="data.txt">data.txt</a></p> </blockquote><h2>Description</h2><blockquote> <p>The data.txt file is a tab-separated ascii file. The file contains all raw data used in statistical analyses of Greater Rheas habitat models.</p> <p>The spatial resolution chosen for the analysis was based on the 20 % of Greater Rhea home range. Sampling area is equivalent to 1.5 × 1.5 km moving window, including 2,500 Landsat pixels. The mean value of all pixels within the window was used in each variable.</p> <p>Column definitions:</p> <p>1 = ID, Data identification</p> <p>2 to 7 = Correlation index (CR, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively)</p> <p>8 to 13 = Variance index (second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively)</p> <p>14 to 19 = Mean index (MN, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively)</p> <p>20 to 25 = homogeneity index (HG, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>26 to 31 = entropy index (ENT, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>32 to 37 = dissimilarity index (DISS, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>38 to 43 = contrast index (CONT, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>44 to 49 = second moment index (SECM, second order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>50 to 55 = variance index (VR, first order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>56 to 61 = mean index (MN, first order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>62 to 67 = entropy index (entro, first order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>68 to 73 = skewness index (skw, first order texture variable corresponding to Landsat band 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 respectively).</p> <p>74 = proportion of bare soil </p> <p>75 = proportion of grassland </p> <p>76 = proportion of crops </p> <p>77 = proportion of forest </p> <p>78 = proportion of alfalfa </p> <p>79 = NDVI </p> <p>80 = Coefficient of variation of NDVI (%) </p> <p>81 = Distance to houses (km) </p> <p>82 = Distance to roads (km)</p> <p>83 = Distance to water (km) </p> <p>84 = Greater rhea group size</p> <p>85 = location of each group; UTM_X (m)</p> <p>86 = location of each group; UTM_Y (m)</p> </blockquote