1993
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.882
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A global activation approach to the effect of changes in environmental context on recognition.

Abstract: A number of prior studies have not found declines in recognition performance when testing occurs in an environmental context that is different from the learning context. These findings raise serious problems for global activation theories of recognition which predict that hit and false alarm rates will decline when the test context does not match the learning context. Environmental context was manipulated as a unique combination of foreground color, background color, and location on a computer screen in three … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

17
187
4
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(209 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
17
187
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, despite source dimensions being associated with learned items, it may also be possible that our encoding procedures did not favor a highly integrated memory trace that includes direct binding of sources. Even though in Experiment 2 we warned people that they would be tested on this information, this may not have prompted a thorough encoding approach that encourages ensemble encoding (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994. To underscore this point, recent work by Burgess (2013, 2014; see also Horner, Bisby, Bush, Lin, & Burgess, 2015) demonstrated stochastic dependence among triplets of encoded information that were all mutually and focally encoded.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, despite source dimensions being associated with learned items, it may also be possible that our encoding procedures did not favor a highly integrated memory trace that includes direct binding of sources. Even though in Experiment 2 we warned people that they would be tested on this information, this may not have prompted a thorough encoding approach that encourages ensemble encoding (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994. To underscore this point, recent work by Burgess (2013, 2014; see also Horner, Bisby, Bush, Lin, & Burgess, 2015) demonstrated stochastic dependence among triplets of encoded information that were all mutually and focally encoded.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Expectancy-like effects, however, are difficult to ignore in research on memory; indeed, the growing concern with the impact of "context" in more recent memory models (e.g., Dalton, 1993;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995 provides an obvious vehicle by which expectancy-based processes are being incorporated into current theories of human memory. In this case, context plays a role by affording a framework through which observers can better integrate and elaborate the to-be-remembered information, thereby increasing the depth of processing of such information, reducing memory load for information, as well as providing a means for anticipating upcoming information.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, conservative recognition responding leads to better source performance than does liberal responding. Notably, providing a context cue from the study phase can lead to more liberal recognition responding (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993), which would decrease source performance in the cued condition and potentially counteract any boost in source memory provided by the cues. This relationship between recognition bias and source performance also holds for multinomial models, because more liberal recognition responding reflects a greater willingness to guess "old" when item detection fails, and all source responses are guesses in this circumstance (Fig.…”
Section: Separating Memory From Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a classic example, participants recall more words when they are tested in the same room in which they learned the words than when they are tested in a different room (e.g., Smith, 1979). In contrast, many experiments show no effect of context cues on discriminability in recognition and source tasks (Fernandez & Glenberg, 1985;Godden & Baddeley, 1980;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994Smith, Glenberg, & Bjork, 1978;Starns & Hicks, 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%