Encoding specificity principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:58, 21 March 2016

Revision as of 08:09, 22 March 2016

Line 1:

The '''encoding specificity principle''' provides a framework for understanding how the conditions present while [[Encoding (memory)|encoding]]  information relate to [[memory]] and [[Recollection|recall]] of that information.<ref name="Tulving">{{cite journal|last=Tulving|first=Endel|author2=Donald Thomson|title=Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory|journal=Psychological Review|year=1973|volume=80|issue=5|pages=352–373|doi=10.1037/h0020071}}</ref> Memory researchers Thomson and [[Endel Tulving|Tulving]] suggest that recall is most effective when the conditions at the time of encoding match the conditions at the time of retrieval. These conditions may refer to the context in which the information was encoded, the physical ___location or surroundings, as well as the mental or physical state of the individual at the time of encoding. This principle plays a significant role in both the concept of [[context-dependent memory]] and the context of [[state-dependent memory]].

Consider the debate on whether taking an exam in the same classroom in which the material for the exam was encoded positively correlates with performance on said exam. The encoding specificity principle suggests that it does. In this example, the context refers to the physical ___location in which the exam takes place. Another example could correspond to the state an individual is in at the time of encoding; studies show that a person who is intoxicated at the time of encoding has a better time retrieving information if later the person is also intoxicated.<ref name="alcohol" /> State can also refer to the emotional state the individual is in at the time of encoding and at the time of retrieval; if these states match, the individual is more likely to recall the encoded information.

In a laboratory study, a subject presented with an unrelated word pair is able to recall a target word with much more accuracy when prompted with the unrelated word it was matched with at the time of encoding, than if presented with a semantically related word that was not available during the time of encoding.<ref name="Semantics revisited">{{cite journal|last=Hannon|first=Brenda|author2=Fergus Craik|title=Encoding specificity revisited: The role of semantics|journal=Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=2001|volume=55|issue=3|pages=231–243|doi=10.1037/h0087369}}</ref> During a recall task, people benefit equally from a weakly related cue word as from a strongly related cue word, provided the weakly related word was present at encoding.<ref name="Alzheimers RI-48">{{cite journal|last=Adam|first=S.|coauthors=M. Van der Linden, A Ivanoiu, A.-C. Juillerat,S. Bechet, E. Salmon|title=Optimization of encoding specificity for the diagnosis of early AD: The RI-48 task|journal=Journal of Clinical and Experimental neuropsychology|year=2007|volume=29|issue=5|pages=477–487|doi=10.1080/13803390600775339}}</ref>

==Specific Results==