The claim that event-related potentials (ERPs) index familiarity was assessed by acquiring ERPs during a recognition memory task in which participants were instructed to adopt different decision criteria in separate retrieval phases. In one, the instructions were to respond “old” only when confident that this was the correct response, and to respond “new” otherwise (the conservative condition). In the other, the instructions were to respond new only when confident that this was the correct response (the liberal condition). The rationale for this approach was that the level of familiarity licensing an old response would be higher in the conservative than in the liberal condition, and if ERPs index familiarity, this would be reflected in changes to the putative ERP index. This index comprises relatively more positive-going neural activity for correct judgments to old than to new items, which is evident from 300 to 500 msec poststimulus at mid-frontal scalp locations. In keeping with task instructions, participants made more old responses in the liberal than in the conservative condition. There were reliable mid-frontal ERP old/new effects in both conditions, and the ERPs evoked by correct judgments to words in the conservative condition were relatively more positive-going than those in the liberal condition. This finding is consistent with the view that the mid-frontal ERP old/new effect indexes familiarity, and in combination with other ERP findings, provides strong support for dual-process accounts of recognition memory.

Episodic memory is thought to be mediated by executive processes that facilitate the retrieval of task-relevant information at the expense of irrelevant information. The exclusion task [A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 , 513-541, 1991] can be used to explore these processes. In this task, studied items from one source (“targets”) are endorsed on one response key, whereas new and studied items from another source (“nontargets”) are rejected on another key. Herron and Rugg [Strategic influences on recollection in the exclusion task: Electrophysiological evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10 , 703-710, 2003] reported that nontargets elicited the ERP correlate of recollection (the “left parietal old/new effect”) when target accuracy was low, but not when it was high. Their explanation for this was that participants only focused exclusively on the recollection of target information when the likelihood of target recollection was high, as under these conditions this strategy is one that that will give rise to accurate task performance. The fact, however, that targets were encoded in different tasks in the high-and low-accuracy groups means that the results can also be explained in terms of the encoding operations performed at study rather than in terms of target accuracy. This study was designed to distinguish between these competing accounts. All targets were encoded elaboratively. Target accuracy was reduced in one condition with a 40-min study-test interval. Nontargets elicited no left parietal effect in either condition, suggesting that target-specific strategic retrieval is facilitated by certain classes of encoding operations rather than simply high target accuracy per se.