Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 246 Views
REMEMBERING: THE ROLE OF THE CUE. Remembering as “ecphory” A synthesis of engram, current state, and retrieval cue (Semon, 1909) Cue Specificity Free versus cued recall Tulving & Psotka (1971) study categorized list free recall: .40 then cued recall: .70
E N D
REMEMBERING: THE ROLE OF THE CUE • Remembering as “ecphory” • A synthesis of engram, current state, and retrieval cue (Semon, 1909) • Cue Specificity • Free versus cued recallTulving & Psotka (1971)study categorized listfree recall: .40 then cued recall: .70 • Recall versus recognitionTulving & Watkins (1973)study word list (e.g., grape)then cue: vary stem size (gr-- = 2) 0 (recall) .25 full (recognition) .85
Cue/Target Distinctiveness (vs. overload) • The von Restorff effect (1933) • “flashbulb” memories as distinctive • “fan effects” and cue overload Roediger (73): cued recall p(r Four items per category: .69 Seven items per category: .59 • Can cue and target distinctiveness be distinguished? • Encoding Specificity Designs retrieval condition A’ B’ Encoding A A-A’A-B’ Condition B B-A’B-B’
Encoding/Retrieval Specificity(Tulving, 1973) • Compares E/R Match versus Mismatch • Small but reliable effects of: • Verbal/associative “context”: • Physical environment: • Godden & Baddeley (1975): scuba • Smith, Glenberg & Bjork (1978): rooms Tulving & Thompson (1970) Test Context / cues Study contextnone weak strong None (BLACK) .49 .43 .68 Weak (train-BLACK) .30 .82 .23 Eich (1985): same or different rooms 24 words studied recall recognition Imagery: same diff same diff isolated .26 .24 .95 .93 integrated .45 .31 .90 .91
Goodwin, et al. (1969): recall errors 10 oz 80 proof vodka or placebo Retrieval state Encoding stateSober Intoxicated Sober 1.25 2.25 Intoxicated 4.58 2.50 • Pharmacological context: • Eich (1975): Marijuana or Placebo Study categorized list of 48 words • Study Test Free Recall Cued Recall • Pla Pla 11.5 24.0 • Pla Mar 9.9 23.7 • Mar Pla 6.7 22.6 • Mar Mar 10.5 22.3
Eich & Metcalfe (1989): happy & sad recall Word-generation, not reading, shows effect: Test mood Encoding moodHappySad Happy .32 .17 Sad .17 .27 • Affective mood as context: • Mental operations as context (TAP): Glisky & Rabinowitz (1985): read/generate Generation effect larger if redone at test task at test: Encoding task read complete Read .60 .59 Complete .76 .86
Encoding/Retrieval Specificity (contd) • Item-specific versus relational processing: • Principles of Encoding Specificity • Diverse contexts • Small relative to main effects, but replicable • Larger when “binding” of context is greater, and other cues less effective Hunt & Einstein (1981): taxonomic (Rel) and ad hoc (Unrel) word lists recall recognition Type of List Encoding task R U R U sort (relational) .42 .47 .73 .89 rate (item-specific) .48 .33 .93 .91
OTHER WAYS TO RETRIEVE • Repeated test opportunities • Reminiscence, maybe hypermnesia • Continued test phase • Spontaneous recovery? • Hypnosis? • Long interest in hypnosis and recovered memories • Lots of anecdotal evidence • Lab studies suggest increases in hit rate, at expense of false alarms • In applied settings (e.g. eyewitness testimony), unacceptable even if d’ increases too
IMPROVING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY The Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, ’92) - Recreate original context - Retrieve partial information - Vary the perspective - Use mental imagery - Encourage active role in EW - Keep focus on relevant dimensions - Develop rapport, reduce anxiety Number of crime-relevant facts elicited by trained & untrained detectives Before After trained 26.8 39.6 untrained 23.8 24.2 (Fisher, Geiselman & Amador, 1989)
