When does a different environmental context make a difference in recognition? A global activation model

Abstract

The effects on recognition of changes in environmental context between learning and test are examined. Acontext effect occurs when memory tests that take place in an environmental context that is different from the learning context produce consistent differences in performance. Aformal model of context-dependent recognition within a global activation framework is presented. The model generates the predictions that (1) context effects will be present when items are tested in a new context that was not seen during learning and (2) context effects will be absent or very small when items are tested in a context that was experienced during learning but that differs from the context in which the test item was learned. Both predictions were verified in an experiment that varied the nature of the different-context test within subjects. Implications for research concerned with contextdependent recognition are discussed.Prior studies that have tested recognition memory in an environmental context that is different from the learning context have produced inconsistent results. In a number of studies

Successful cuing of gender source memory does not improve location source memory

“…Second, despite source dimensions being associated with learned items, it may also be possible that our encoding procedures did not favor a highly integrated memory trace that includes direct binding of sources. Even though in Experiment 2 we warned people that they would be tested on this information, this may not have prompted a thorough encoding approach that encourages ensemble encoding (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994. To underscore this point, recent work by Burgess (2013, 2014; see also Horner, Bisby, Bush, Lin, & Burgess, 2015) demonstrated stochastic dependence among triplets of encoded information that were all mutually and focally encoded.…”

“…Deciding to go along with a gender cue when it is correct will be countered by decisions to go along with the gender cue when it is incorrect. Second, theoretically Starns and Hicks reasoned that source memory decisions already require internal reinstatement of source details to create an appropriate retrieval cue and that providing people with an external cue is often redundant (Bjork & Richardson-Klavehn, 1989;Murnane & Phelps, 1994;Smith, 1979). Starns and Hicks (2013) used a source cuing paradigm that emphasized the degree to which an external cue provides nonredundant information and also controlled for response bias.…”

Internal reinstatement hides cuing effects in source memory tasks

“…Some theorists have explained these null effects by proposing that participants internally reinstate cues when external cues are unavailable at retrieval (Bjork & Richardson-Klavehn, 1989;Murnane & Phelps, 1994;Smith, 1979). That is, external cues may be ineffective because the information they provide is redundant with information internally reinstated by participants on uncued trials.…”

“…In a classic example, participants recall more words when they are tested in the same room in which they learned the words than when they are tested in a different room (e.g., Smith, 1979). In contrast, many experiments show no effect of context cues on discriminability in recognition and source tasks (Fernandez & Glenberg, 1985;Godden & Baddeley, 1980;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994Smith, Glenberg, & Bjork, 1978;Starns & Hicks, 2005).…”

The effect of normative context variability on recognition memory.

“…Hintzman & Summers, 1973). Context has also been defined as the physical environment in which an item occurs (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, 1975;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane, Phelps, & Malmberg, 1999;Smith, Glenberg, & Bjork, 1978). Howard and Kahana (2002) described the context associated with a given item as a composite representation of the semantic features of the items that preceded it on a list.…”