REMEMBERING: THE ROLE OF THE CUE

• Remembering as “ecphory”– A synthesis of engram, current state,

and retrieval cue (Semon, 1909)

• Cue Specificity– Free versus cued recall

Tulving & Psotka (1971)

study categorized listfree recall: .40

then cued recall: .70

– Recall versus recognition

Tulving & Watkins (1973)

study word list (e.g., grape)then cue: vary stem size (gr-- = 2)

0 (recall) .25 full (recognition) .85

• Cue/Target Distinctiveness

(vs. overload)– The von Restorff effect (1933)

– “flashbulb” memories as distinctive

– “fan effects” and cue overload

Roediger (73): cued recall

p(r

Four items per category: .69

Seven items per category:.59

– Can cue and target distinctiveness be distinguished?

• Encoding Specificity Designsretrieval

condition

A’ B’

Encoding A A-A’ A-B’

Condition B B-A’ B-B’

• Encoding/Retrieval Specificity(Tulving, 1973)– Compares E/R Match versus Mismatch– Small but reliable effects of:

• Verbal/associative “context”:

• Physical environment:– Godden & Baddeley (1975): scuba– Smith, Glenberg & Bjork (1978): rooms

Tulving & Thompson (1970)

Test Context / cuesStudy context none weak strongNone (BLACK) .49 .43 .68Weak (train-BLACK) .30 .82 .23

Eich (1985): same or different rooms 24 words studied

recall recognitionImagery: same diff same diff isolated .26 .24 .95 .93 integrated .45 .31 .90 .91

• Pharmacological context:

Eich (1975): Marijuana or Placebo

Study categorized list of 48 words

Study Test Free Recall Cued Recall

Pla Pla 11.524.0

Pla Mar 9.923.7

Mar Pla 6.722.6

Mar Mar 10.522.3

Goodwin, et al. (1969): recall errors10 oz 80 proof vodka or placebo

Retrieval stateEncoding state Sober Intoxicated

Sober 1.25 2.25Intoxicated 4.58 2.50

• Affective mood as context:

• Mental operations as context (TAP):

Eich & Metcalfe (1989): happy & sad recall

Word-generation, not reading, shows effect:

Test moodEncoding mood Happy Sad

Happy .32 .17

Sad .17 .27

Glisky & Rabinowitz (1985): read/generate

Generation effect larger if redone at test

task at test:Encoding task read complete

Read .60 .59

Complete .76 .86

• Encoding/Retrieval Specificity (contd)– Item-specific versus relational

processing:

• Principles of Encoding Specificity– Diverse contexts– Small relative to main effects, but

replicable– Larger when “binding” of context is

greater, and other cues less effective

Hunt & Einstein (1981): taxonomic (Rel) and ad hoc (Unrel) word lists

recall recognition Type of List

Encoding task R U R U sort (relational) .42 .47 .73 .89 rate (item-specific) .48 .33 .93 .91

OTHER WAYS TO RETRIEVE

• Repeated test opportunities– Reminiscence, maybe hypermnesia– Continued test phase– Spontaneous recovery?

• Hypnosis?– Long interest in hypnosis and

recovered memories– Lots of anecdotal evidence– Lab studies suggest increases in hit

rate, at expense of false alarms– In applied settings (e.g. eyewitness

testimony), unacceptable even if d’ increases too

IMPROVING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

The Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, ’92)

- Recreate original context - Retrieve partial information - Vary the perspective - Use mental imagery - Encourage active role in EW - Keep focus on relevant dimensions - Develop rapport, reduce anxiety

Number of crime-relevant factselicited by trained & untrained detectives

Before Aftertrained 26.8 39.6untrained 23.8 24.2

(Fisher, Geiselman & Amador, 1989)