Literature DB >> 22297425

Variations in constrained retrieval.

Michael W Alban1, Colleen M Kelley.   

Abstract

Mentally reinstating encoding operations at retrieval might improve access to memories; however, such constrained retrieval is an effortful process that may not always be used. The memory-for-foils procedure (Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, & Rhodes, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 852-857, 2005) infers participant-initiated mental reinstatement of encoding operations during attempts at recognition from the differential memory that accrues to foils during a test of deeply processed items versus during a test of shallowly processed items, as indicated by performance on a final recognition memory test for the foils. Experiment 1 tested whether differential memory for foils is due to the evocation of task context during recollection of neighboring old items. Experiment 2 tested whether inducing a set to respond without much effort on a prior recognition test affects the likelihood of constrained retrieval on later tests. Experiment 3 tested whether constrained retrieval is less likely to occur when the deep versus shallow source of test items is intermixed, rather than blocked in separate tests. These experiments provide evidence that people query memory by mentally reinstating encoding operations and identify conditions that affect the probability of constrained retrieval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22297425     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0185-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  32 in total

1.  Task-switching and memory retrieval processing: electrophysiological evidence.

Authors:  E L Wilding; A C Nobre
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2001-11-16       Impact factor: 1.837

2.  Perceptual match effects in direct tests of memory: the role of contextual fan.

Authors:  Lynne M Reder; Dimitrios K Donavos; Michael A Erickson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-03

3.  A contextual change account of the directed forgetting effect.

Authors:  Lili Sahakyan; Colleen M Kelley
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Modeling experimentally induced strategy shifts.

Authors:  Scott Brown; Mark Steyvers; Pernille Hemmer
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-01

5.  Reinstating effortful encoding operations at test enhances episodic remembering.

Authors:  Stephen A Dewhurst; Karen R Brandt
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  Modes of cognitive control in recognition and source memory: depth of retrieval.

Authors:  Larry L Jacoby; Yujiro Shimizu; Karen A Daniels; Matthew G Rhodes
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-10

7.  Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory.

Authors:  Michael F Verde; Caren M Rotello
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-03

8.  Neural correlates of individual differences in strategic retrieval processing.

Authors:  Emma K Bridger; Jane E Herron; Rachael L Elward; Edward L Wilding
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Encoding processes during retrieval tasks.

Authors:  R L Buckner; M E Wheeler; M A Sheridan
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Multivoxel pattern analysis reveals increased memory targeting and reduced use of retrieved details during single-agenda source monitoring.

Authors:  Susan G R McDuff; Hillary C Frankel; Kenneth A Norman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  11 in total

1.  How Distinctive Processing Enhances Hits and Reduces False Alarms.

Authors:  R Reed Hunt; Rebekah E Smith
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

2.  Top-down constraint on recognition memory.

Authors:  Justin Kantner; D Stephen Lindsay
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-04

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

Authors:  Mehmet A Guzel; Philip A Higham
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-07

4.  Source-constrained retrieval and survival processing.

Authors:  James S Nairne; Josefa N S Pandeirada; Joshua E VanArsdall; Janell R Blunt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-01

5.  Memory as discrimination: what distraction reveals.

Authors:  C Philip Beaman; Maciej Hanczakowski; Helen M Hodgetts; John E Marsh; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-11

6.  Emotional Encoding Context Leads to Memory Bias in Individuals with High Anxiety.

Authors:  Christopher Lee; Myra A Fernandes
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2017-12-27

7.  Alpha Oscillations during Incidental Encoding Predict Subsequent Memory for New "Foil" Information.

Authors:  David A Vogelsang; Matthias Gruber; Zara M Bergström; Charan Ranganath; Jon S Simons
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Closing the door to false memory: the effects of levels-of-processing and stimulus type on the rejection of perceptually vs. semantically dissimilar distractors.

Authors:  Marek Nieznański; Michał Obidziński
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-06-10

9.  Competition and Cooperation among Relational Memory Representations.

Authors:  Hillary Schwarb; Patrick D Watson; Kelsey Campbell; Christopher L Shander; Jim M Monti; Gillian E Cooke; Jane X Wang; Arthur F Kramer; Neal J Cohen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Goal-directed mechanisms that constrain retrieval predict subsequent memory for new "foil" information.

Authors:  David A Vogelsang; Heidi M Bonnici; Zara M Bergström; Charan Ranganath; Jon S Simons
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.