Source-constrained retrieval influences the encoding of new information

Abstract

Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, and Rhodes (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 852-857, 2005) showed that new words presented as foils among a list of old words that had been deeply encoded were themselves subsequently better recognized than new words presented as foils among a list of old words that had been shallowly encoded. In Experiment 1, by substituting a deep-versus-shallow imagery manipulation for the levels-of-processing manipulation, we demonstrated that the effect is robust and that it generalizes, also occurring with a different type of encoding. In Experiment 2, we provided more direct evidence for context-related encoding during tests of deeply encoded words, showing enhanced priming for foils presented among deeply encoded targets when participants made the same deep-encoding judgments on those items as had been made on the targets during study. In Experiment 3, we established that the findings from Experiment 2 are restricted to this specific deep judgment task and are not a general consequence of these foils being associated with deeply encoded items. These findings provide support for the sourceconstrained retrieval hypothesis of Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, and Rhodes: New information can be influenced by how surrounding items are encoded and retrieved, as long as the surrounding items recruit a coherent mode of processing.

Alpha oscillations during incidental encoding predict subsequent memory for new “foil” information

“…Our behavioral findings replicated earlier studies in demonstrating the typical foil effect: Semantic foils were remembered significantly more accurately than non-semantic foils, supporting the idea that participants implemented a semantic processing mode during the semantic memory test (Alban & Kelley, 2012;Danckert et al, 2011;Halamish et al, 2012;Jacoby et al, 2005a;2005b;Kantner & Lindsay, 2013;Marsh et al, 2009;Vogelsang et al, 2016). Time-frequency analysis of EEG data collected during the initial study phase revealed a power decrease in alpha frequencies over left frontal electrodes between 600-1000ms (and mid/right posterior electrodes between 600-1600ms) during the semantic as opposed to non-semantic task, consistent with prior literature highlighting a role for alpha oscillations in semantic processing (e.g.…”

“…Because semantic encoding typically leads to more accurate memory compared to non-semantic encoding, this "foil effect" implies that participants strategically orient their retrieval towards a semantic processing mode when attempting to retrieve semantic encoded information, and a non-semantic processing mode when retrieving nonsemantic information, resulting in better incidental encoding of semantic compared to nonsemantic foils. Jacoby and colleagues interpreted this foil finding in light of the transfer appropriate processing principle by emphasizing the importance of the overlap in study-test operations for optimizing retrieval success (see also Alban and Kelley, 2012;Danckert et al, 2011;Gray & Gallo, 2015;Halamish et al, 2012;Kantner and Lindsay, 2013;Marsh et al, 2009;Zawazka et al, 2017).…”

Late consequences of early selection: When memory monitoring backfires

“…In the memory--for--foils literature, the pleasantness task has been most often used as the deep orienting task so the majority of evidence for the consequences for foils of adopting retrieval orientation has come from this particular task. Still, there are studies that investigated the memory--for--foils phenomenon with other tasks requiring deep processing of targets (Alban & Kelley, 2012;Danckert et al, 2011) and given comparable results obtained in those studies, the idea of the uniqueness of the pleasantness task is unlikely to be correct.…”

“…All previous investigations of retrieval orientation with the memory--for--foils paradigm focused on a comparison of deep and shallow processing tasks. Importantly, Danckert et al (2011) showed that retrieval orientation is likely to be adopted only for a deep test, but not necessarily on a shallow test. As mentioned earlier, in their study, foils from the deep and shallow tests were subjected to the same judgments that defined deep and shallow tests.…”

“…This is consistent with the assumption that on deep tests new words are deeply processed in the context of the orienting task. Danckert et al (2011) substituted the final test for foils with a second judgment phase, in which the task was to perform on foils the same judgments that were earlier made for targets at study.…”