Variations in constrained retrieval

Alban, Michael W.; Kelley, Colleen M.

doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0185-5

Cited by 22 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Since reinstating encoding operations is an effortful, self-initiated process (Alban & Kelley, 2012), it is possible that participants chose to engage such a strategy in order to elicit recollection . CC-BY 4.0 International license not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Vogelsang

Gruber

Bergström

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People can employ adaptive strategies to increase the likelihood that previously encoded information will be successfully retrieved. One such strategy is to constrain retrieval towards relevant information by re-implementing the neurocognitive processes that were engaged during encoding. Using electroencephalography (EEG), we examined the temporal dynamics with which constraining retrieval towards semantic versus non-semantic information affects the processing of new "foil" information encountered during a memory test. Time-frequency analysis of EEG data acquired during an initial study phase revealed that semantic compared to non-semantic processing was associated with alpha decreases in a left frontal electrode cluster from around 600ms after stimulus onset. Successful encoding of semantic versus nonsemantic foils during a subsequent memory test was related to decreases in alpha oscillatory activity in the same left frontal electrode cluster, which emerged relatively late in the trial at around 1000-1600ms after stimulus onset. Across subjects, left frontal alpha power elicited by semantic processing during the study phase correlated significantly with left frontal alpha power associated with semantic foil encoding during the memory test. Furthermore, larger left frontal alpha power decreases elicited by semantic foil encoding during the memory test predicted better subsequent semantic foil recognition in an additional surprise foil memory test. These findings indicate that constraining retrieval towards semantic information involves re-implementing semantic encoding operations that are mediated by alpha oscillations, and that such re-implementation occurs at a late stage of memory retrieval perhaps reflecting additional monitoring processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Vogelsang

Gruber

Bergström

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Jacoby and colleagues (e.g., Jacoby, Kelley, & McElree, 1999;Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, & Rhodes, 2005a;Jacoby, Shimizu, Velanova, & Rhodes, 2005b; see also Alban &Kelley, 2012, andMarsh et al, 2009) have explored source-constrained retrieval, an early selection mechanism in memory. Source-constrained retrieval was initially investigated in recognition memory tasks using the memory-for-foils procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociating early- and late-selection processes in recall: The mixed blessing of categorized study lists

Guzel

Higham

2013

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported in which we used type-2 signal detection theory to separate the effects of semantic categorization on early-and late-selection processes in free and cued recall. In Experiment 1, participants studied cue-target pairs for which the targets belonged to two, six, or 24 semantic categories, and later the participants were required to recall the targets either with (cued recall) or without (free recall) the studied cues. A confidence rating and a report decision were also required, so that we could compute both forced-report quantity and metacognitive resolution (type-2 discrimination), which served as our estimates of early-and late-selection processes, respectively. Consistent with prior research, having fewer categories enhanced the early-selection process (in performance, two > six > 24 categories). However, in contrast, the late-selection process was impaired (24 > six = two categories). In Experiment 2, encoding of paired associates, for which the targets belonged to either two or 20 semantic categories, was manipulated by having participants either form interactive images or engage in rote repetition. Having fewer categories again was associated with enhanced early selection (two > 20 categories); this effect was greater for rote repetition than for interactive imagery, and greater for free recall than for cued recall. However, late selection again showed the opposite pattern (20 > two categories), even with interactive-imagery encoding, which formed distinctive, individuated memory traces. The results are discussed in terms of early-and late-selection processes in retrieval, as well as overt versus covert recognition.Keywords Recall . Recognition . Metamemory . Categorization . Type 2 signal detection theory It has been well documented that semantic or categorical relatedness between study items (e.g., study lists composed of exemplars from semantic categories) has a facilitative effect on recall, as compared to no relationship between

show abstract

“…Thus it is reasonable to speculate that in recognition memory, as in recall, top-down constraint can modulate the probability that a probe will cue recollections of a prior encounter with that item. In support of that idea, Alban and Kelley (2012) pointed to evidence that recognition memory can be enhanced by recapitulating encoding operations (see Nairne, 2002, for evidence that recapitulating encoding processes does not always enhance recognition).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Top-down constraint on recognition memory

Kantner

Lindsay

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can recognition memory be constrained "at the front end," such that people are more likely to retrieve information about studying a recognition-test probe from a specified target source than they are to retrieve such information about a probe from a nontarget source? We adapted a procedure developed by Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, and Rhodes (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:852-857, 2005) to address this question. Experiment 1 yielded evidence of sourceconstrained retrieval, but that pattern was not significant in Experiments 2, 3, and 4 (nor in several unpublished pilot experiments). In Experiment 5, in which items from the two studied sources were perceptibly different, a pattern consistent with front-end constraint of recognition emerged, but this constraint was likely exercised via visual attention rather than memory. Experiment 6 replicated both the absence of a significant constrained-retrieval pattern when the sources did not differ perceptibly (as in Exps. 2, 3 and 4) and the presence of that pattern when they did differ perceptibly (as in Exp. 5). Our results suggest that people can easily constrain recognition when items from the to-be-recognized source differ perceptibly from items from other sources (presumably via visual attention), but that it is difficult to constrain retrieval solely on the basis of source memory.

show abstract

Variations in constrained retrieval

Cited by 22 publications

References 44 publications

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

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

Dissociating early- and late-selection processes in recall: The mixed blessing of categorized study lists

Top-down constraint on recognition memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About