Encoding specificity in cued recall and context recognition.

Abstract

Tulving's encoding specificity principle was examined in two experiments. The main comparison concerned the relationship between the retrieval cue or recognition context and input cue. The presumed encoding of the to-beretrieved or to-be-recognized item was either semantically the same as or different than its encoding during input. Experiment 1 demonstrated encoding specificity (same cues were superior to different cues) under a typical free-responding output condition and the elimination of that effect under a forced-choice procedure. These data suggested that criterion biases may be the source of the effect, or that forced responding led to extended item processing. A second experiment employing signal detection theory procedures, however, showed both criterion and discriminability differences. To account for these results a stimulus sampling theory of encoding and retrieval similar to Bower's was proposed. The model was a modification of the generation-recognition model, which can account for the apparent lack of isomorphism between the episodic and semantic representation of the word.

Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall

“…However, the spirit of the multiple-representation argument can be seen in explanations of encoding specificity using feature sampling theory (e.g., Bower, 1967;Estes, 1959;Kintsch, 1974;Underwood, 1969;Wickens, 1970), some of which are relevant to generate-recognize theory. For example, Pellegrino and Salzberg (1975b; see also Flexser & Tulving, 1978;Pellegrino & Salzberg, 1975a;Roediger & Adelson, 1980) suggested that a set of features is sampled from the target item both when it is presented at study (in which case the features are ''tagged''), and when it is generated at test. To the extent that there is matching or overlap of the features sampled at test in the generated item, with those that are tagged at study, a positive recognition response is elicited, and the target is given as a response.…”

“…4 Although these indices are not process pure for reasons that we will discuss below, they offer a substantial improvement over the way that cuedrecall performance has traditionally been assessed in the encoding-specificity literature. Indeed, in that literature, metacognitive variables are often overlooked completely; typically, only free-report target production has been analyzed (although see Pellegrino & Salzberg, 1975b). As Higham pointed out, free-report target production is a very ''dirty'' measure of performance because generation processes, recognition processes, and response bias all affect it (see also Higham & Gerrard, 2005;Kelley & Sahakyan, 2003;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996).…”

Semantic integration and context

“…These context effects have been obtained under a variety of contextual manipulations. Most frequently, homographic stimuli have been used (Davis, Lockhart, & Thomson, 1972;Hunt & El!is, 1974;Light & Carter-Sobel!, 1970;Paul, Bernbach, & Snuttjer, 1975;Pellegrino & Salzburg, 1975). In the typical paradigm, subjects study the homographs in a context biasing one or the other interpretation, and then are tested for recognition in a context biasing the same or different sense.…”

Determinants of the word-frequency effect in recognition memory

“…Recognition failure may be anticipated if the contexts at input and test are different and evoke different semantic senses of the word. The view that word senses are encoded has become very widespread (e.g., Baddeley, 1976;Pellegrino & Salzberg, 1975). Moreover, the view that word senses are encoded is not confined exclusively to experiments in which there is a direct manipulation of context, but such encoding is also assumed to occur when words are presented alone.…”