Remembering and forgetting as context discrimination.

Capaldi, E. J.; Neath, Ian

doi:10.1101/lm.2.3-4.107

Cited by 67 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, grouping may occur after perceptual processing, perhaps as a result of relating an item to its context in memory (Capaldi & Neath, 1995;Diana, Yonelinas, & Ranganath, 2007;Polyn & Kahana, 2008). However, to be viable, any grouping account would have to provide a mechanism that is temporally precise, that is not influenced by grouping strength, that is modulated by image-relevance, and by which temporal overlap and image relevance are all that is necessary for grouping to occur.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of timing in the attentional boost effect

Swallow

Jiang

2010

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Images that are presented with targets of an unrelated detection task are better remembered than images that are presented with distractors (the attentional boost effect). The likelihood that any of three mechanisms, attentional cuing, prediction-based reinforcement learning, and perceptual grouping, underlies this effect depends in part on how it is modulated by the relative timing of the target and image. Three experiments demonstrated that targets and images must overlap in time for the enhancement to occur; targets that appear 100 ms before or 100 ms after the image without temporally overlapping with it do not enhance memory of the image. However, targets and images need not be synchronized. A fourth experiment showed that temporal overlap of the image and target is not sufficient, as detecting targets did not enhance the processing of task-irrelevant images. These experiments challenge several simple accounts of the attentional boost effect based on attentional cuing, reinforcement learning, and perceptual grouping.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of timing in the attentional boost effect

Swallow

Jiang

2010

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, there are a few recent nonbiological models of basic learning processes that do emphasize the roles of information retrieval and response generation processes (see Miller and Matzel 1988;Gallistel and Gibbon 2000). Notably, over the past 35 yr, cognitive psychologists working with human subjects, but largely in a nonbiological framework, have recognized the importance of retrieval (see Capaldi and Neath 1995) and decision processes (e.g., signal detection theory).…”

Section: Learning and Memory 495mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval failure versus memory loss in experimental amnesia: Definitions and processes

Miller

Matzel²

2006

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For at least 40 years, there has been a recurring argument concerning the nature of experimental amnesia, with one side arguing that amnesic treatments interfere with the formation of enduring memories and the other side arguing that these treatments interfere with the expression of memories that were effectively encoded. The argument appears to stem from a combination of (1) unclear definitions and (2) real differences in the theoretical vantages that underlie the interpretation of relevant data. Here we speak to how the field might avoid arguments that are definitional in nature and how various hypotheses fare in light of published data. Existing but often overlooked data favor very rapid (milliseconds) synaptic consolidation, with experimental amnesia reflecting, at least in part, deficits in retrieval rather than in the initial storage of information.As most commonly conceived, "memory consolidation" refers uniquely to the processes by which newly acquired information, which is initially represented in ongoing synaptic transmission, comes over time to be encoded in a format that was independent of ongoing activity (and thus sensory stimulation) (Müller and Pilzecker 1900;McGaugh 1966). Fundamental to consolidation theory as it was originally formulated is that there were dual representational systems, one dependent upon ongoing neural transmission and the other dependent on enduring (i.e., structural/molecular) changes in the nervous system (e.g., pathway synthesis, facilitation of transmitter release, potentiation of sensitivity to transmitter binding, enhancement of membrane excitability) (for a review, see Matzel et al. 1998). Presumably there was a sequential dependence of the latter process (consolidation) on the former process (see Hebb 1949). Today it is widely recognized that there are a number of different molecular-structural representations that may be formed during memory storage, and that these representations become stable (i.e., "encoded") at very different rates and are dependent on different neuroanatomical sites (see Gibbs and Ng 1977;McGaugh 2000). This conceptualization of the consolidation process is often referred to as "system consolidation," although it should be noted that these different structural-molecular representations need not be sequentially linked (see Tully et al. 1994). Much recent attention has been devoted to system consolidation, which is relatively slow and measured in hours, days, or even months (see Kim and Fanselow 1992), as opposed to the earlier but still not fully answered questions of initial consolidation, which is generally assumed to occur in seconds or minutes. Although careless use of language has resulted in some confusion between these two related but different types of consolidation, some researchers distinguish them by using the expression "synaptic consolidation" (or "short-term molecular consolidation") for initial consolidation, which they differentiate from system consolidation (Nadel and Moscovitch 1997; Nader et al. 2000b;Dudai 2004). The focus of...

show abstract

“…Importantly however, many memory researchers would qualify the encoding-retrieval match hypothesis by introducing the concept of cue-overload (Capaldi & Neath, 1995;Craik & Jacoby, 1979;Earhard, 1967;Eysenck, 1979;Hunt & Smith, 1996;Roediger & Guynn, 1996;Watkins & Watkins, 1975;Watkins 1979). The cue overload hypothesis states that as the number of items in memory associated with a cue increases the effectiveness of the cue declines.…”

Section: Cue Overloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory as discrimination: A challenge to the encoding–retrieval match principle.

Poirier

Nairne

Morin

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractFour experiments contrasted the predictions of a general encoding-retrieval match hypothesis with those of a view claiming that the distinctiveness of the cue-target relationship is the causal factor in retrieval. In Experiments 1, 2, and 4 participants learned the relationships between four targets and trios of cues; in Experiment 3 there were three targets, each associated with a pair of cues. A learning phase was followed by a cued-recognition task where the correct target had to be identified based on one or more of the cues. The main performance measurement was response time. Learning was designed to lead to high accuracy so effects could be attributed to retrieval efficiency rather than to variations in encoding. The nature of the cues and targets was varied across experiments. The critical factor was whether each cue was uniquely associated with the to-be-recalled target or not. All experiments orthogonally manipulated 1) how discriminative-or uniquely associated with a target-each cue was and 2) the degree of overlap between the cues present during learning and those present at retrieval. The novel finding reported here is that increasing the encoding retrieval match can hinder performance if the increase simultaneously reduces how specifically cues predict a target-that is, a cue's diagnostic value. Encoding-retrieval match was not the factor that determined the effectiveness of retrieval. Our findings suggest that increasing the encoding-retrieval match can lead to no change, an increase, or a decrease in retrieval performance. Memory as discrimination 3Memory as Discrimination:A Challenge to the Encoding-Retrieval Match PrincipleOne of the most fundamental questions that research on human cognition has to answer is how we remember -or retrieve information from memory. A better knowledge of this process will contribute to our understanding of normal memory functioning, of forgetting, and of the memory problems that accompany various illnesses and brain disorders.When considering memory from this perspective, we are referring to explicit and conscious attempts to retrieve events or information from our past -we are referring to recollectionor what is typically known as retrieval from explicit/episodic memory (Tulving, 2002).

show abstract

Remembering and forgetting as context discrimination.

Cited by 67 publications

References 73 publications

The role of timing in the attentional boost effect

The role of timing in the attentional boost effect

Retrieval failure versus memory loss in experimental amnesia: Definitions and processes

Memory as discrimination: A challenge to the encoding–retrieval match principle.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About