Content deleted Content added
Line 27:
===Encoding Specificity and the Diagnosis of Disease===
Many studies that have employed the encoding-specificity paradigm have also shown that patients with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease Alzheimer's disease] (AD) are unable to effectively process the semantic relationship between two words at encoding to assist in the retrieval process. For example, in their 1988 study, Granholm and Butters generated a list of 60 words divided into groups of three. Each triad consisted of a to-be-remembered word, a strong associate, and a weak associate. Five experimental conditions were designed: O-O, S-S, W-W, W-S, and S-W. In the S-S condition, each to-be-remembered word was accompanied by a strong word at presentation and a strong word at retrieval. In the S-W condition, a strong associate at presentation and a weak associate at retrieval accompanied each to-be-remembered word, etc. (alzheimers granholm and butters article)
The researchers found, in congruence with the encoding specificity principle, that control subjects benefitted as much from a weakly related cue word as 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. (Salmon) 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. (granholm butters) Deficits in episodic memory are now widely accepted as a characteristic symptom of Alzheimer’s disease. (diagnosis of early AD article)
===Encoding Specificity and Advertising===
| |||