A test of retrieved context theory: Dynamics of recall after incidental encoding.

Abstract

The temporal contiguity effect (TCE) is the tendency for the recall of one event to cue recall of other events originally experienced nearby in time. Retrieved context theory proposes that the TCE results from fundamental properties of episodic memory: binding of events to a drifting context representation during encoding and the reinstatement of those associations during recall. If these processes are automatic, the TCE should not be dependent on any encoding strategy and should, in fact, be present regardless of encoding intentionality. Here, we ask whether this theory is compatible with recent findings that the TCE is dramatically reduced under incidental encoding, even though memory accuracy is only modestly reduced. We begin by attempting to replicate this finding in a new large-scale study with over 5,000 participants in which we manipulated encoding intentionality between participants in both delayed free recall and continual distractor free recall. A small, but reliable, TCE was observed in all conditions, although the effect was dramatically reduced in incidental encoding. In a simulation study, we demonstrated that retrieved context theory can simultaneously account for both overall recall and the strength of the TCE in incidental encoding conditions. Additional analyses revealed that the incidental TCE is not an artifact of theoretically uninteresting factors, such as recency, and is consistent with being generated by the core contextual dynamics of retrieved context theory.

Does depth of processing affect temporal contiguity?

“…However, we urge caution in interpreting these results. Serial position effects can introduce a spurious TCE that disguises true differences between conditions, particularly when recall or primacy/recency differ substantially among conditions (Healey et al, 2019 ; Mundorf et al., 2021 ; Polyn, Erlikhman, & Kahana, 2011 ; Uitvlugt & Healey, 2019 ), as they do here.…”

“…Higher temporal factor scores indicate near-lag transitions are more likely than far-lag transitions (i.e., greater temporal contiguity). To control for primacy, recency, and other serial position effects, which may artificially inflate the TCE, we compared the actual temporal factor score to the score expected if transitions were random with respect to lag (for details on these confounds, see Mundorf et al., 2021 ). We calculated this chance-level expected factor score by taking the items actually recalled by each participant and permuting the order 500 times, computing a temporal factor score for each permutation.…”

“…The TCE is the finding that recalling one event often triggers recall of another event experienced nearby in time (Kahana, 1996 ). Although the size of the effect is modulated by various factors, a TCE has been consistently observed regardless of task instructions or stimuli characteristics (Healey, Long, & Kahana, 2019 ; Healey & Uitvlugt, 2019 ; Mundorf, Lazarus, Uitvlugt, & Healey, 2021 ; Sadeh, Moran, & Goshen-Gottstein, 2015 ; but see Osth & Fox, 2019 ). The TCE also predicts memory performance (Healey et al, 2019 ; Sederberg, Miller, Howard, & Kahana, 2010 ; Spillers & Unsworth, 2011 ), at least for intentional encoding of unrelated words (Healey & Uitvlugt, 2019 ; Mundorf et al., 2021 ).…”

“…Although the size of the effect is modulated by various factors, a TCE has been consistently observed regardless of task instructions or stimuli characteristics (Healey, Long, & Kahana, 2019 ; Healey & Uitvlugt, 2019 ; Mundorf, Lazarus, Uitvlugt, & Healey, 2021 ; Sadeh, Moran, & Goshen-Gottstein, 2015 ; but see Osth & Fox, 2019 ). The TCE also predicts memory performance (Healey et al, 2019 ; Sederberg, Miller, Howard, & Kahana, 2010 ; Spillers & Unsworth, 2011 ), at least for intentional encoding of unrelated words (Healey & Uitvlugt, 2019 ; Mundorf et al., 2021 ). These findings have given rise to many models of episodic memory with TCE-generating mechanisms (e.g., Davelaar, Goshen-Gottstein, Ashkenazi, Haarmann, & Usher, 2005 ; Farrell, 2012 ; Howard, Shankar, Aue, & Criss, 2015 ; Lehman & Malmberg, 2013 ).…”

Episodic memory impairment in children and adolescents at risk for schizophrenia: A role for context processing

“…The level of temporal contiguity can be affected by primacy, recency, and other serial position effects ( Kahana, 1996 ; Healey et al, 2019 ). These effects can be controlled for by calculating chance-adjusted temporal factor scores ( Healey, 2018 ) that compare the non-adjusted temporal factor scores to the scores that would be expected if transitions between items were random rather than determined by temporal contiguity (for details see Mundorf et al, 2021 ). Models comparing chance-adjusted scores with Risk Group as a factor indicated no significant effect, χ 2 (2) = 2.56, p = 0.28, with a weak support for the null hypothesis, BF 10 = 0.60, even though the numerical trend was similar to the non-adjusted scores (high-risk = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.66], clinical control = 0.53, 95% CI = [0.27, 0.82], healthy control = 0.62, 95% CI = [0.31, 0.93]).…”