Effects of changes in relative cue strength on context-dependent recognition.

Murnane, Kevin S.; Phelps, Matthew P.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.158

Cited by 65 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The theory states that environmental contextual features are processed at learning and at test unless the ambient environment is suppressed, either because of conceptual processing, or because nonambient contexts are mentally reinstated. The theory is predicated on the idea that remembering depends on the similarity or featural overlap of memory traces and memory probes, a commonly used principle of memory theories (e.g., J. M. Eich, 1982;Hintzman, 1988;Humphreys et al, 1989;Murnane & Phelps, 1995;Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981). The basic principles proposed herein can be easily accommodated by most current theories of memory and are consistent with the findings of the present meta-analysis.…”

Section: Environmental Context Encoding and Cuingsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…These findings contrast with the finding of our metaanalysis that shows that incidental environmental context manipulations reliably affect recognition memory (i.e., measures such as d ¢), rather than cause the same-direction effects found by Murnane and Phelps. In spite of the differences between Murnane and Phelps's studies and those reviewed in the present metaanalysis, at least one f inding appears to link the two. This finding is that, contrary to predictions of our theory, shallower input processing did not increase contextdependent recognition (Murnane & Phelps, 1995;. Our theory predicts that deeper processing of items at input should increase the encoding of item information in memory traces and in memory probes, thereby decreasing context-dependent effects.…”

Section: Environmental Context Encoding and Cuingcontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Although these theoretical questions are relevant to computational models that rely on contextual associations (e.g., Chappell & Humphreys, 1994;Murnane & Phelps, 1995;Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981), such models generally postulate only that some material serves as context, remaining silent as to whether incidental environmental material is encoded and can cue memory traces. More directly relevant is Glenberg's (1997) theory of environmental suppression, which states that the environment is processed and represented unless efforts to suppress the environment are made to permit conceptual processing.…”

Section: Rationale For Studying Incidental Environmental Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis

Smith

Vela

2001

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

781

778

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address questions about human memory's dependence on the coincidental environmental contexts in which events occur, we review studies of incidental environmental context-dependent memory in humans and report a meta-analysis.Our theoretical approach to the issue stems from Glenberg' s (1997) contention that introspective thought (e.g., remembering, conceptualizing) requires cognitive resources normally used to represent the immediate environment. We propose that if tasks encourage processing of noncontextual information (i.e., introspective thought) at input and/or at test, then both learning and memory will be less dependent on the ambient environmental contexts in which those activities occur. The meta-analysis showed that across all studies, environmental context effects were reliable, and furthermore, that the use of noncontextual cues during learning (overshadowing) and at test (outshining), as well as mental reinstatement of appropriate context cues at test, all reduce the effect of environmental manipulations. We conclude that environmental context-dependent memory effects are less likely to occur under conditions in which the immediate environment is likely to be suppressed.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Context Encoding and Cuingsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Environmental Context Encoding and Cuingcontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Rationale For Studying Incidental Environmental Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis

Smith

Vela

2001

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

781

778

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hintzman & Summers, 1973). Context has also been defined as the physical environment in which an item occurs (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, 1975;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane, Phelps, & Malmberg, 1999;Smith, Glenberg, & Bjork, 1978). Howard and Kahana (2002) described the context associated with a given item as a composite representation of the semantic features of the items that preceded it on a list.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of normative context variability on recognition memory.

Steyvers¹,

Malmberg²

2003

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to some theories of recognition memory (e.g., S. Dennis & M. S. Humphreys, 2001), the number of different contexts in which words appear determines how memorable individual occurences of words will be: A word that occurs in a small number of different contexts should be better recognized than a word that appears in a larger number of different contexts. To empirically test this prediction, a normative measure is developed, referred to here as context variability, that estimates the number of different contexts in which words appear in everyday life. These findings confirm the prediction that words low in context variability are better recognized (on average) than words that are high in context variability.In a typical recognition memory experiment, a list of words is studied, and memory is tested subsequently by showing subjects both words that were studied (i.e., targets) and words that were not studied (i.e., foils). The subject's task is to discriminate the targets from the foils. Of course, subjects have encountered words a large number of times in many different contexts prior to the experiment. Hence, the subject's rather daunting task is to discriminate the most recent encounter with a word from all prior encounters.Theories of memory usually address this issue by making a distinction between item and context information (e.g., Anderson & Bower, 1972;Dennis & Humphreys, 2001;Humphreys, Bain, & Pike, 1989;Jacoby, 1991;Maddox & Estes, 1997;McGeoch, 1942;Mensink & Raaijmakers, 1988;Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997): Item information represents a studied stimulus (e.g., a word), and context information represents the environment in which the stimulus was encountered. According to these theories, when an item is studied, both item and context information are stored in an episodic trace, and when recognition memory is tested, memory is probed with a retrieval cue consisting of both item and context information. The critical role context plays in the retrieval cue is to restrict the probe to the relevant subset of memory traces (as defined by the task). Those episodic traces that contain context information similar to the retrieval cue might become members of the "activated" subset of memory and contribute information to the recognition decision. Hence, the to-be-remembered encounter with a word can, in principle, be isolated from prior encounters according to the similarity between the context used in the retrieval cue and context information stored in memory.

show abstract

“…Clark & Gronrund, 1996)ῌ ̰ΰῳῤῧQQ ῦ̮̮ῡ´῎ῷ̲̲ΰ̯QQ̳Ύῦ῎QΊ`̲ ῲQ ΅QῳῢῨ̮`Ὺῧῧῌ QQΎ̲ ῧῬ̮ῥQῴΎ̲ ῧQQQ̮ΏQ̲ΰΊῡ̮̯ (cf. Clark & Gronrund, 1996) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Smith, 1988(Smith, , 1994)῍ ῙῙῡῌ Q̮̮΅ῦQῚῧῌ Q̮̮΅Qῥ̰̰῝`ῢῲ ῠ` (Watkins & Watkins, 1975) Dalton, 1993;Q̯ , 1991;Russo, Ward, Geurts, & Scheres, 1999;Smith, 1986ῐ῎ (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1995) ῡQ̮̯Ί῭ῠ̮Ῥ῍ Ὶ῭ῥ̮ ῠῌ QῨῥ̮̰̰῞QQῳῶῦQ̳`ΊῨ̯QQῡῧῌ ̯ῦ̮῟῭̰̮ῳῶ̱Ώῲ̲ Q`QQῠ̮Ῥ ῒe.g., Dalton, 1993;Q̯ῌ 1991;Russo et al, 1999;Smith, 1986ΐ῍ ̰QQῳῶ̰ῗQQQῳῶῦ̰̮ῥῌ ̱̲Ὸῼῑῴ̱Ὼ̲ῲῦ̲̯ῤῚ`῏Q̯ῳῶ ῢῌ QQῌ ῦ̮ῌ BGM ῦ̰̮ῥῌ ῧQ̯QQῥQ῞ Ῥῳῶῦ̮῟῭̰̮QQ̯ῳῶῥῲ̲Ί῭ῠ̮Ῥ̮ (e.g., Smith, 1988)ῌ ̯ῦQQῥῧQῐῦῐ̯̮Q ῞ῬῚῢ̮̱QΊ῭ῠ̮Ῥ῍ ̰QQῳῶ̰ῗQQQῳῶ ῧῌ Q̮̮Ύ΅̳̮QῘῤῬῢῌ QῨ̱̱QΎῡῧῳῶ Q̳̮Q῝ῤῘῤῬ̮ ῒῴQQ῏ Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999ΐῌ ̯ῦ̰̮ῤQ̮Q̮̮Ύ΅̳QQῡ̰ῌ Q QῳῶῡῧῺ῾ῤῳῶQ̳̮Q῝Ῥ (Canas & Nelson, 1986;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences of cue-overload on background-color context effects in recognition

Isarida¹,

Isarida²,

Okamoto³

2005

NINCHISHINRIGAKUKENKYU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments, with a total of 120 undergraduates, were carried out to examine whether recognition for words is better when tested against a background-color that matches that at study compared to testing in a context in which no items were studied. The experiments also examined whether presentation rateῌa determinant of item strengthῌinteracts with the background-color context. Undergraduate participants studied 40 target words presented at either a rate of 1.5 or 3.0 seconds per word in one of two background-color contexts in Experiment 1, and studied 36 words in one of six contexts in Experiments 2 and 3. Recognition for the targets was tested with lists consisting of equal numbers of distractors and targets, immediately after study in Experiments 1 and 2, and after a 5-minute filled retention interval in Experiment 3. Although no e#ect on recognition of the background-color context was observed in Experiment 1, context e#ects were found in Experiments 2 and 3. Presentation rate did not interact with the context e#ect. The implications of the present findings are discussed.Key words : recognition, environmental context, background color, cue-overload, presentation rate ῎Q̳̯ῌ 3 ῞̯QQ̰Q̮῟ῌ QQ̯QῖQQQῌῐῼ̯QQ̰ῬῳῗῨQQ̮ῌ QQ̯QQ̮ Ῡ̯̮῝Ίῌῐῼ̯ῬῳῗῨQQῥῧΰῌ ̮QQQQQQ̰Qῗ̮Q̮̰QῢΊ῍ ῎Q̳̯QQQ̯ῌ QQ 120 ῑ̯Q Q̯ΐ῝Ί῍ ̮ῦ̯῎Q̳̯ῌ Qῒ̳Q̯ QῸ̯ῡ̯῞̯ΐῨQQQQ̯Q̲̯QQ QῌῐQ̲̯ ̯QQQ̮QῖῨ̮Q̮ΰQῢΊ῍ QQQ̯ῌ 40 Q̯QQ ῐQQ 1ῑῌ ΐῨ̯ 36 Q ̯QQ ῐQQ 2 ̯ 3ῑ ̰ Q̮Ί῍ QQ̯ 1.5Q/QΐῨ̯ 3.0Q/Q̯QQQQ̯QQ̮Ί῍ ̮ῦ̯ῌ QQ̯ 2 Q̮̯QQQῌῐ ῐQQ 1ῑῌ ΐῨ̯ 6 Q̮̯QQQῌῐ ῐQQ 2 ̯ 3ῑ ̯ῘῩ̮̯ΰ̯̯ QQ̮Ί῍ QQῬῳ̯̯ῌ Q̮ΊQQ ῐ`῏Ὺῳῑ ̯QQ̯ῲ̰Ῥῳ̱̰`῏̰QῚQ̰ῙΊ῍ QQ 1 ̯ 2 ̯ Q῭Ύ̱ῴ̯QQ̯Ῥῳ̮ῌ QQ 3 ̯ 5 Q ̯QΌ Q̯Ῥῳ̮Ί῍ QQ 1 ̯̯ῌ Q Q̯QQQῌῐQ̲̰QῙ̯̮῝Ί̮ῌ QQ 2 ̯ 3 ̯̯ΐῶ̯ῌῐQ̲̰Q̮Ί῍ ῌῐQ̲̯Q QQQQ̲̯QQQ̯ΐῶ̯̯̮῝Ί῍ QQ̯ῌ ῎Q̳Q̲̯ῶ̳̯῞῟QQ̮Ί῍ ̰῏̱῏̱ ῎ QQῌ ̳Qῌῐῌ QQQῌ Q̮̮ῧ̲Q̲ῌ QQQQ ̰̱΅῏̱ ΏQQ̯ῌ `῏Ὺῳ̯ῌῐ̯̯QQ̮ Ῡ῟Ῠ῍ `῏Ὺῳ̯QQ´ῤQQ̯QQ̯̯ῨQ῍ ̯ΐῧῌ ῌῐ̯`῏Ὺῳ῾̯̰̱΅῏̱QQ̯QQ ̮Q̯ΐῨ῍ ῌῐ̯Q̯ῌ Q̮Q̯Q̳̮῟Ῠ ̳̯

show abstract

Effects of changes in relative cue strength on context-dependent recognition.

Cited by 65 publications

References 57 publications

Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis

Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis

The effect of normative context variability on recognition memory.

Influences of cue-overload on background-color context effects in recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About