Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 4:
==Basic Methods==
Cued recall experiments using word lists provided initial evidence for the encoding specificity principle, proving that “given a particular encoding context, memory is better when retrieval reinstates that context.”3 Carefully constructed word lists are typically used as the basic setup for these types of memory experiments. These lists are presented to participants under controlled conditions, and participant memory is tested with standard memory tasks, including free recall and recognition. These traditional types of memory research focus on a participant’s specific memory content. 3
In a quintessential study by Thomson and Tulving, participants were told to encode word pairs, such as ''plant-bug''. The second word in the pair was the target word to be remembered. A long list of such weakly related word pairs was encoded, after which participants were given a cued-recall test with two separate retrieval conditions. In one condition, a strongly related word was given to cue the target. ''Insect'', for example, would be given to cue ''bug''. In the second condition, the original word ''plant'' was given as the cue for ''bug''. Participants were much more successful at identifying the target word in the second condition when their cue for retrieval was ''plant''. This is because the event that must be retrieved is the episodic memory of encountering the word pair ''plant-bug''. Thomson and Tulving were then able to conclude the relationship between semantic and episodic memory dictates the effectiveness of the reactivation of certain specific encoding situations. For instance, in this experiment, the cue insect best triggers a semantic memory due to the word’s categorical relatedness whereas the word ''plant'' will cue the episode in which the participant encoded the word ''bug''.
==Specific Results==
===Role of Semantics in Encoding Specificity===
| |||