Encoding specificity principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:21, 9 April 2017

Revision as of 04:05, 19 February 2019

Line 3:

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|author=Adam, S.|author2=M. Van der Linden|author3=A Ivanoiu|author4=A.-C. Juillerat|author5=S. Bechet|author6=E. Salmon|title=Optimization of encoding specificity for the diagnosis of early AD: The RI-48 task|journal=Journal of Clinical and Experimental neuropsychologyNeuropsychology|year=2007|volume=29|issue=5|pages=477–487|doi=10.1080/13803390600775339}}</ref>

==Specific results==

Line 62:

====Physical environment====

The ___location and environment in which you learn something readily affects how you can freely recall it.<ref name="underwater study">{{cite journal|last=Godden|first=D.R.|author2=A.D. Baddely|title=Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments: On Land and Underwater|journal=The British Journal of Psychology|year=1975|volume=66|issue=3|pages=325–331|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x}}</ref> Lists of words were presented to participants both underwater and on the beach. When recall was tested in the environment of original encoding, free recall was far superior to recall when tested in an altered environment.<ref name="underwater 2">{{cite journal|last=Godden|first=Duncan|author2=Alan Baddely|title=When Does Context Influence Recognition Memory?|journal=The British Journal of Psychology|year=1980|volume=71|pages=99–104|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb02735.x}}</ref> Memory tested through recognition, however, was not affected. This phenomenon is explained by what is termed the [[Context-dependent memory|outshining hypothesis]]: context can be a useful cue for memory but only when it is needed. One will only turn to context as a cue when better cues are unavailable. In recognition tests, cues other than the immediate encoding context and environment are superior, whereas in free-recall tests, the immediate environment serves as the only cue to trigger memory.<ref name="underwater 2" />

====Auditory environment====

The level and kind of noise in any given encoding environment will affect the ability to recall the information encoded in a different auditory environment.<ref name="Music auditory">{{cite journal|last=Grant|first=Harry|author2=Lane C. Bredahl |author3=John Clay |author4=Jennifer Ferrie |author5=Jane Groves |author6=Timothy McDorman |author7=Veronica Dark |title=Context-dependent memory for meaningful material: Information for students|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|year=1998|volume=12|issue=6|pages=617–623|doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(1998120)12:6<617::aid-acp542>3.0.co;2-5|citeseerx=10.1.1.497.6500}}</ref> Students receive higher scores on tests when they study for and take examinations in environments that have similar auditory background distractions, thus proving that the context-dependency effect applies to meaningful scenarios in addition to unrelated word lists. While a typical college student's study environment often includes background noise, test environments are typically quieter.<ref name="Music auditory" /> In line with the encoding specificity principle, this mismatch at encoding and retrieval is detrimental to test performance.<ref name=Textbook>{{cite book|last=Robinson-Riegler|first=Bridget|title=Cognitive Psychology: Applying the Science of the mind|year=2008|publisher=Pearson Publishing|___location=Boston, MA|isbn=978-0-205-03364-45|pages=246–248}}</ref> Students who study with background noise recall just as much information as students studying in silence, provided they are tested in the same type of environment as which the information was encoded.<ref name="Music auditory" />

===Voluntary retrieval of autobiographical memory===

Line 71:

===Diagnosis of disease===

Patients with [[Alzheimer's disease]] (AD) are unable to effectively process the semantic relationship between two words at encoding to assist in the retrieval process.<ref name="Alzheimer's granholm">{{cite journal|last=Granholm|first=Eric|author2=Nelson Butters|title=Associative encoding and retrieval in Alzheimer's and Huntington's Disease|journal=Brain and Cognition|year=1988|volume=7|issue=3|pages=335–347|doi=10.1016/0278-2626(88)90007-3}}</ref> The general population benefits equally from a weakly related cue word as from a strongly related cue word during a recall task, provided the weakly related word was present at encoding. Patients with AD, however, were unable to benefit from the weakly related cue even if it was present at both encoding and retrieval.<ref name="Alzheimer's granholm" /> Instead of relying upon semantic encoding, those with AD presented their most dominant associations to the cue words during recall test. This explains why all AD patients performed well when two strong words were matched together but very poorly when a strong and weak pairs were presented during recall(10). Deficits in episodic memory are now widely accepted as a characteristic symptom of Alzheimer's disease.<ref name="Alzheimers RI-48" />

===Alcohol===

Line 81:

==Criticism==

James S. Nairne of Purdue University is the primary opponent of Thomson and Tulving's encoding specificity principle.<ref name=Textbook /> He argues that the encoding-retrieval match is correlational rather than causal and states that many cognitive psychologists consider the principle to be "sacrosanct".<ref name=nairne>{{cite journal|last=Nairne|first=James S.|title=The myth of the encoding-retrieval match|journal=Memory|year=2002|volume=10|issue=5/6|pages=389–395|doi=10.1080/09658210244000216|citeseerx=10.1.1.377.6640}}</ref> Nairne suggests that what determines successful memory is cue distinctiveness. He says that good memory may be produced even if there is almost no encoding-retrieval overlap, provided the minimal overlap is highly distinctive.<ref name=nairne /> He characterizes memory as an "active process of discrimination"<ref name=nairne /> and proposes that we use cues to choose between several retrieval candidates. Increasing the encoding-retrieval match improves memory performance, he believes, but only because it increases the probability that distinctive features will come into play.<ref name=nairne />

==References==