Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 32:
Marian and Neisser found that participants accessed more Russian memories when interviewed in Russian and more English memories when interviewed in English. They concluded, therefore, that the language used at the time of retrieval and the linguistic encoding-retrieval match influences which memories the bilingual participants will access. The researchers gave two possible reasons for this finding. First, the set words may have been spoken during the original event that the participant was remembering. Hearing the word at encoding and again at retrieval may have been a sufficient cue to bring the memory to mind. Second, their finding may be due to the general language-created ambiance of the room rather than the specific associations to individual cue words. Therefore, memories are more accessible when the language of encoding and recall are similar rather than different; this is not only a result of associations to specific word prompts but also the overall linguistic ambiance and recall. Thus Marian and Neisser found results supporting Thomson and Tulving’s encoding specificity principle: memory recall is superior when two contexts are the same rather than different.
===Encoding Specificity and Drugs===▼
Weingartner et. al. (1976) explore the topic of encoding specificity in alcohol state-dependent learning. 11 female volunteers participated in their study. They ranged from 21 to 35 years old, were between 120 and 125 pounds, and were all occasional social drinkers. 80 frequently occurring English words were randomly chosen to construct four word-recall lists. Half the words in each list were low imagery nouns; the other half were high imagery nouns. Subjects, all of whom were experiencing a moderate to intense level of intoxication, were required to listen to a word list and immediately write down all the words they could remember. Four hours later, they were asked to freely recall the words. All subjects performed the experiment under four separate conditions: S-S (learning and immediate recall while sober, and sober recall four hours later), S-I (learning and immediate recall while sober and later recall while intoxicated), I-S (learning and immediate recall while intoxicated and later recall while sober), and I-I (learning and immediate recall while intoxicated and later recall while intoxicated). ▼
Weingartner et. al. found that both high and low imagery words were less likely to be recalled if they were stored while the participant was intoxicated rather than sober. However, information encoded and stored while intoxicated was retrieved more effectively when later recall tests were performed while intoxicated as compared recall while sober. This finding was much more apparent with low-imagery words than high-imagery words. This experiment supports the context-dependency effect of the encoding specificity principle referred to earlier.▼
===Encoding Specificity and the Diagnosis of Disease===
Line 42 ⟶ 37:
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 Drugs===
▲Weingartner et. al. (1976) explore the topic of encoding specificity in alcohol state-dependent learning. 11 female volunteers participated in their study. They ranged from 21 to 35 years old, were between 120 and 125 pounds, and were all occasional social drinkers. 80 frequently occurring English words were randomly chosen to construct four word-recall lists. Half the words in each list were low imagery nouns; the other half were high imagery nouns. Subjects, all of whom were experiencing a moderate to intense level of intoxication, were required to listen to a word list and immediately write down all the words they could remember. Four hours later, they were asked to freely recall the words. All subjects performed the experiment under four separate conditions: S-S (learning and immediate recall while sober, and sober recall four hours later), S-I (learning and immediate recall while sober and later recall while intoxicated), I-S (learning and immediate recall while intoxicated and later recall while sober), and I-I (learning and immediate recall while intoxicated and later recall while intoxicated).
▲Weingartner et. al. found that both high and low imagery words were less likely to be recalled if they were stored while the participant was intoxicated rather than sober. However, information encoded and stored while intoxicated was retrieved more effectively when later recall tests were performed while intoxicated as compared recall while sober. This finding was much more apparent with low-imagery words than high-imagery words. This experiment supports the context-dependency effect of the encoding specificity principle referred to earlier.
===Encoding Specificity and Advertising===
| |||