L8 Context Reinstatement & Encoding Variability

The idea that generating information is always better for long-term retention than reading is related to ___

Generation effect

(Not ‘Level of Processing’! LoP is about viewing memory as shallow to deep processing—semantic/ phonemic/ orthography)

Definitions:

• Encoding variability

• Context reinstatement

• Transfer-appropriate processing

Encoding variability

• Encoding repeated info in more than one way, often in more than one context → builds robust presentations by providing more paths to retrieval

• “Contexts” = external environments, method of processing (e.g., semantic/ phonemic encoding), inner states (e.g., moods), drugs

• Used to explain the spacing effect

Context reinstatement

• Matching the encoding & retrieval contexts → facilitates memory

• Based on “Encoding Specificity principle” – the most effective retrieval cues are the ones encoded specifically with the target

• “Environment contains cues”

Transfer-appropriate processing

• Relationship btw type of processing at encoding & tasks — “Appropriate” = good “transfer” btw learning & test → good retrieval

Encoding Specificity vs. TAP Theory

Context cues matching vs. Processing type matching

• Encoding Specificity emphasises the match btw encoding & retrieval contexts (e.g., environmental cues, internal state…). It suggests that the retrieval cues are most effective if they reinstate the context of encoding. It explains the “Recognition failure of Recallable words.”

• TAP is more about the match btw the type of cognitive processing used during encoding & retrieval (e.g., active recall vs. passive recognition, rote memorisation vs. meaningful elaboration).

*Sometimes they overlap!

• e.g., “Test format” works as both a retrieval/ context cue (for ESP) and a determinant of processing type (for TAP)

In Tulving and Thomson's (1973) study on recognition failure of recallable words, what did they find?

Why did participants fail to recognise words that they had generated?

Words failed to be recognised when context (cues) were not reinstated, but they could be recalled when the context (cues) was reinstated

The words were studied in the context of weak associates, but the recognition (of the words generated in the free association task) was attempted in the context of strong associates

→ Context (in this case, ‘retrieval cues’) mismatched instead of reinstated

→ Demonstrated the Encoding Specificity principle

What is similar btw Morris et al. (1977) and Jacoby’s (1983) findings?

They both found that there’s no method that is “always better” for memory; memory performance depends on how memory is tested

→ Pose a problem for any memory theory that is just abt encoding

→ Both demonstrate the Transfer-appropriate processing principle

Contrary to Levels of Processing (think abt memory in terms of how deeply-processed info is during encoding, Semantic > Phonemic > Orphographic), Morris et al. (1977) [Standard recognition vs. Rhyme recognition test] → Deep semantic encoding leads to better standard recognition, but worse rhyme recognition; Shallow phonemic encoding can produce good memory performance if tested with a rhyme recognition test

• Contrary to the Generation effect, Jacoby (1983) [Standard recognition vs. Perceptual identification task] → Reading can lead to better memory performance than generating, if tested with a perceptual identification task

• → Semantic processing & generating are not always ‘superior’, but depend on the type of the test

Which finding from Jacoby (1983) poses problems for the generalisability of the generation effect?

The memory superiority of generated (vs. read) information depends on how memory is tested

Imundo et al. (2021): restudy (replicating Smith) + test

Feedback not given → Poor retrieval performance during testing when the context changed btw the initial study & practice testing [encoding & retrieval contexts mismatched] → does little to help final test performance (unless corrective feedback is given)

What is the interplay btw encoding variability & context reinstatement? (Imundo et al., 2021)