Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Research on context-mediated facilitation of recognition memory distinguishes between the effects of reinstating the exact same context previously associated with a target and a context that is familiar but not directly associated with the target. As both effects are difficult to produce reliably in recognition experiments, attention has turned to measures that may explain inconsistencies, such as the extent to which instructions encourage association between targets and contexts. The aim of the current study was to examine the distinctive and interactive effects of three factors that may lead to variability in context effects (CEs), namely type of instructions given at learning, delay between learning and test, and exposure time for targets and contexts at learning. Using a comprehensive paradigm developed by Vakil and colleagues, with photographs of faces serving as target and context stimuli, both exposure time and delay were shown to be associated with the occurrence of CEs and appeared to interact with one another in determining the nature of these effects. Unlike several previous studies, false alarms did not increase when foils were presented with familiar contexts. Also unexpectedly, the instruction manipulation did not appear to strengthen target-context binding. It may instead have increased attention to contexts at the expense of targets, as suggested by the finding that direct memory for context improved under associative instruction conditions. Overall, the study demonstrates the importance of understanding and controlling various factors that may potentially influence the emergence of both reinstatement and familiarity-based CEs, among them exposure time and learning-to-test delay.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Baddeley, A. (1982). Domains of recollection. Psychological Review, 89, 708–729. CrossRef
Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1980). When does context influence recognition memory? British Journal of Psychology, 71, 99–104. CrossRef
Gruppuso, V., Lindsay, D. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2007). I’d know that face anywhere! Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 1–21.
Hanczakowski, M., Zawadzka, K., & Coote, L. (2014). Context reinstatement in recognition: memory and beyond. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 85–97. CrossRef
Hollingworth, A. (2006). Visual memory for natural scenes: evidence from change detection and visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 781–807. CrossRef
Kroll, N. E., Yonelinas, A. P., Dobbins, I. G., & Frederick, C. M. (2002). Separating sensitivity from response bias: implications of comparisons of yes-no and forced-choice tests for models and measures of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 241. CrossRef
Levy, D. A., Rabinyan, E., & Vakil, E. (2008). Forgotten but not gone: Context effects on recognition do not require explicit memory for context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1620–1628.
Mayes, A. R. (1988). Amnesia and Memory for Contextual Information. In G. M. Davies & D. M. Thomson (Eds.), Memory in Context: Context in Memory (pp. 193–213). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Mayes, A. R., MacDonald, C., Donlan, L., Pears, J., & Meudell, P. R. (1992). Amnesics have a disproportionately severe memory deficit for interactive context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 265–297. CrossRef
Messer, K., Matas, J., Kittler, J., Luettin, J., & Maitre, G. (1999). XM2VTSbd: The Extended M2VTS Database, Proceedings 2nd Conference on Audio and Video-base Biometric Personal Verification (AVBPA99). New York: Springer Verlag.
Murnane, K., & Phelps, M. P. (1993). A global activation approach to the effect of changes in environmental context on recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 882–894. CrossRef
Murnane, K., Phelps, M. P., & Malmberg, K. (1999). Context-dependent recognition memory: the ICE theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 403–415. CrossRef
Parker, A., & Gellatly, A. (1997). Moveable cues: a practical method for reducing context-dependent forgetting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 163–173. CrossRef
Russo, R., Ward, G., Geurts, H., & Scheres, A. (1999). When unfamiliarity matters: changing environmental context between study and test affects recognition memory for unfamiliar stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 488–499. CrossRef
Shimamura, A. P., & Squire, L. R. (1991). The relationship between fact and source memory: findings from amnesic patients and normal subjects. Psychobiology, 19, 1–10.
Vakil, E., Raz, T., & Levy, D. A. (2007). Multifactorial context effects on visual recognition memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 916–923. CrossRef
Vakil, E., Raz, T., & Levy, D.A. (2010). Probing the brain substrates of cognitive processes responsible for context effects on recognition memory. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 17, 519–544.
Winograd, E., & Rivers-Bulkeley, N. T. (1977). Effects of changing context on remembering faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 397–405.
- In a context of time: the impact of delay and exposure time on the emergence of memory context effects
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg