2010
DOI: 10.3758/mc.38.8.1101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigating the encoding—retrieval match in recognition memory: Effects of experimental design, specificity, and retention interval

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(72 reference statements)
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These analyses suggest that recognition accuracy was affected by envelope type at encoding and retrieval; however, this was mostly driven by better performance in the percussive-percussive than in the two incongruent conditions. This outcome is consistent with long-standing theoretical frameworks (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and recent empirical findings (Dewhurst & Knott, 2010;Hannon & Daneman, 2007) supporting the encoding specificity hypothesis. This is, in fact, consistent with finding superior performance for participants in percussive versus flat sequences in earlier experiments.…”
Section: Recognitionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…These analyses suggest that recognition accuracy was affected by envelope type at encoding and retrieval; however, this was mostly driven by better performance in the percussive-percussive than in the two incongruent conditions. This outcome is consistent with long-standing theoretical frameworks (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and recent empirical findings (Dewhurst & Knott, 2010;Hannon & Daneman, 2007) supporting the encoding specificity hypothesis. This is, in fact, consistent with finding superior performance for participants in percussive versus flat sequences in earlier experiments.…”
Section: Recognitionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Further, it has been recognized that such reactivation works both ways: retrieval mechanisms reactivate encoding mechanisms, prompting encoding mechanisms to, in turn, facilitate recall tasks (Dewhurst & Knott, 2010;Kolers, 1973). If one is to accept that recall is a simulation of encoding processes and states-that is, repacking together the perceptual, affective and somatic components of human experiences, then prompting mechanisms congruent to those affecting encoding will speed up retrieval processes, while incongruent feelings, sensations or bodily movements will hinder them (see, e.g., Dijkstra & Zwaan, 2007;Dijkstra & Post, 2014;Ianì & Bucciarelli, 2018;Riskind, 1983).…”
Section: The Sensorimotor Simulation Model (Smm)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Researchers have found that successful remembering is a joint function of encoding and retrieval processes (Goh and Lu 2012). The importance of both encoding and retrieval for successful remembering is evidenced by the overlap between encoding and retrieval processes (Kent and Lamberts 2008), the reinstatement of encoding states during retrieval (Danker and Anderson 2010), and the encoding–retrieval match (Dewhurst and Knott 2010; Hannon and Daneman 2007). Memory research commonly espouses the view that successful remembering depends on the similarity between encoding and retrieval conditions (Goh and Lu 2012).…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%