Environmental Context-Dependent Recognition Memory Effects: An Examination of ICE Model and Cue-Overload Hypotheses

Abstract

The ICE model account (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993; Murnane, Phelps, & Malmberg, 1999) of environmental context (EC)-dependent recognition memory is described, and new predictions concerning the effect of multiple presentation ECs are derived. Experiment 1 tested the ICE model predictions in relation to predictions derived from the cue-overload hypothesis (e.g., Watkins, 1979). In addition, the sensitivity of recognition reaction time (RT) as a measure of EC-dependent memory effects was examined. Minimal support was obtained for the ICE model, but greater support was provided for the cue-overload hypothesis. In Experiment 2, further manipulations were employed to test ICE model predictions and the cue-overload hypothesis, with relevance to the mental reinstatement and outshining hypotheses. Again support for the cue-overload hypothesis was obtained, and an EC reinstatement effect with RTs was detected. The ICE model is considered in respect of these findings.

Effects of study time and meaningfulness on environmental context-dependent recognition

“…Consequently, many studies on context-dependent recognition using various visual contexts (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Gruppuso et al, 2007;Hockley, 2008;Isarida et al, 2005;Macken, 2002;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane et al, 1999;Rutherford, 2004) have been published since 1993, whereas only a few place-context studies have been done (Dalton, 1993;Russo et al, 1999). Although both place and visual contexts function as incidental environmental contexts, the present and previous results about place and visual contexts imply that they have different functions.…”

“…The present results for place-context-dependent recognition can be explained in terms only of remembering of past episodes, which may be similar to the recollection processes proposed in the dualprocess model. In contrast, the findings from various visual contexts (e.g., Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Hockley, 2008;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) other than the background-color context (e.g., Isarida et al, 2005;Rutherford, 2004) cannot be explained by recollection, but only by familiarity judgment processes, as proposed by the ICE theory (e.g., Murnane et al, 1999). Recollection and familiarity judgments make different predictions, especially regarding the false alarm rate as a function of context.…”

“…More importantly, Emmerson's manipulation may have covaried with the color of the slate on which the items were presented at both encoding and test; the board looked white on the boat, but possibly green deep underwater. About a decade later, the background color itself was found to produce context-dependent recognition (e.g., Isarida et al, 2005;Rutherford, 2004), regardless of the length of study time . Furthermore, Emmerson used a far greater number of distractors than of targets-16 targets and 84 distractors-whereas most experiments have used the same number of targets and distractors.…”

“…Although these spatial contexts are usually called "environmental contexts," in the present study we refer to the spatial contexts manipulated by means of a variety of places as "place contexts," in order to distinguish the place context from other types of spatial context manipulated by means of a variety of visual features on a computer screen. These other visual features include the simple visual context, such as combinations of foreground color, background color, and item location (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane et al, 1999); a background drawing (Murnane et al, 1999) or background photograph (Gruppuso, Lindsay, & Masson, 2007;Hockley, 2008); and background color (e.g., Isarida, Isarida, & Okamoto, 2005;Rutherford, 2004).…”

Video context-dependent recall

“…Our approach is not radically different from other context manipulations in which target words were associated with contexts at study and in which the targets were cued at test (e.g., Dulsky, 1935;Isarida & Isarida, 2004;Murnane & Phelps, 1994;Rutherford, 2004;Weiss & Margolius, 1954). Providing memory cues at test, as was done in these studies, is an experimental method with a long history (e.g., Calkins, 1896;Thomson & Tulving, 1970;Tulving & Osler, 1968).…”