week 8 context reinstatement and encoding variability Flashcards
encoding variability
encoding repeated information in more than one way and context
builds robust representations by providing more paths to retrieval
context reinstatement
matching encoding and retrieval context
facilities memory
environment contains cues - godden and badeley
transfer appropriate processing
relationship between type of processing at encoding and test
tulving and thomson 1973 - recognition failure of recallable words METHOD
Participants were presented with a list of word pairs during the study phase. The first word served as a cue (e.g., train), and the second was the target (e.g., black).
In the retrieval phase, participants underwent two types of tests:
Recognition Test: Participants were shown a list of words (including the studied targets) without their original cues and were asked to recognize which words they had seen before.
Cued Recall Test: Participants were presented with the original cues (e.g., train) and asked to recall the associated target words (e.g., black).
Tulving and Thompson 1973 RESULTS
- Recognition Failure of Recallable Words:
Participants often failed to recognize target words during the recognition test, even though they could later recall the same words when provided with the original cues. - Encoding Specificity Principle:
The study demonstrated that memory performance depends on the match between encoding and retrieval contexts. Words were more effectively recalled when the cues at retrieval matched those at encoding (e.g., train → black), compared to when they were presented in isolation (as in the recognition test). - Context Dependence in Memory:
Retrieval is not solely a function of the strength of the memory trace but also of the relevance and specificity of retrieval cues.
what kind of memories are produced semantically
deep loP, durable memories
what kind of memories are produced phonemically
medium loP, less durable memories
what kind of memories are produced orthographically
shallow loP, fragile memories that decay quickly
Morris, Bransford and Franks 1977 method
- ptsp encoded nouns with orienting (process in terms of meaning, sound, orthographically) task that either:
- encouraged deep semantic processing
- encouraged shallow, phonemic processing
Standard recognition test: did you study this word earlier?
rhyme recognition test: did you study the word earlier that rhymed with this word eg pain?
Morris, Bransford and Franks 1977 RESULTS
deep semantic at encoding leads to better standard recognition
deep semantic encoding leads to worse rhyme recognition
SO!! NOT ALL ABOUT ENCODING
what did Jacoby 1983 look at
memory is depended not just on how the info is encoded eg deep vs shallow, but on whether testing draws on encoding processes
generation effect
generation effect
self-generating information leads to better memory than reading it
jacoby 1983 METHOD
- during encoding had ptsp read words eg xxx-COLD or generate antonym eg hot-??
(most people will say cold) - test - standard recognition expecting generation effect
- perceptual identification task - flash a word briefly to ptsp and ask to identify it
argued may benefit more from perceptual (reading) processes than conceptual (generation) processes
jacoby 1983 RESULTS
generating vs reading words leads to better standard recognition
generating vs reading words leads to worse perceptual identification
smith et al 1978 RESULTS
highest memory performance is when variables are different eg first session in M and second in P.
what did smith et al 1978 investigate
peoples memory for word lists either studied twice in the same environment or in 2 diff contexts, then tested in third, neutral context
smith et al 1978 METHOD
P - Perry school context: large blackboard, glass cabinets, no window and general clutter. words presented on slides in semi-dark room with only small red light and slide projector provided illumination. experimenter wore coat and tie
M - mason hall context: tiny compartment in animal lab in large, modern central campus building. 2 windows overlook large courtyard and 1 way mirror covered another wall. experimenter wore flannel shirt and jeans
neutral aka retrieval context: large classroom with large windows overlook busy street and little clutter
exposed to word lists multiple times in different context conditions, and after delay eg 3 hours asked to write down as many words as possible
imundo et al 2021 METHOD
replication of smith et al 1978 BUT with longer retention intervals - 48 hours not 3
also investigated effect of testing vs restudying in same vs diff contexts
all ptsp in initial study in same location A
then in training (session 2) conditions were formed eg same context-restudy/test BUT IN LOCATION A or varied context-restudy/test BUT IN LOCATION B
session 3 was final test IN LOCATION C - free recall
imundo et al 2021 RESULTS
- restudying in varied context produced better final performance - like smith et al
2.BUT in testing, same context benefits final test so encoding variability is not beneficial here
imundo et al 2021 hypothesis
- testing performance was poor in varied condition because they retrieved so little during training
- failing to retrieve during retrieval practice does little to help performance unless feedback is given
retrieval during training:
same = 36%
varied = 17%
what happens when learning has taken place in multiple contexts
likely that some cues will overlap with retrieval context, more so if learning was spaced
4 stages of CI
- mentally reinstate context
- recall events in reverse order
- report everything
- change perspective
