Content deleted Content added
→Introduction confusion: new section |
RomainDecrop (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 11:
The first sentence seems to say that people benefit more from a weakly related cue. The second sentence says that people benefit equally well from a weakly or strongly related cue. I'm guessing that the early, and thus fundamental, papers in this area did not directly contradict each other. My point is simply that these sentences should be re-written to better represent their underlying research as, at the moment, they may be confusing to some: 1) Are unrelated/weak and semantically related/strong the same thing? 2) In the second sentence, was the strongly related cue present during encoding? etc... [[User:A.real.human.being|A.real.human.being]] ([[User talk:A.real.human.being|talk]]) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, example sentence to fix it:
Memory researchers such as Thomson and Tulving state that recall of memory is most effective when the context during encoding matches that of the retrieval. This "context" can be anything from the six senses to environmental cues.
Then this sentence should be omitted and another example should be given:
"The principle explains why a subject is able to recall a target word as part of an unrelated word pair at retrieval with much more accuracy when prompted with the unrelated word than if presented with a semantically related word that was not available during encoding."
| |||