Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings

Materials Encoding Tasks Retrieval Tasks/ Conditions Subjects/Participants

Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Attention – Full vs. Divided Response Deadline/Response Signal Delay Short to Long

Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Attention – Full vs. Divided Response Deadline/Response Signal Delay Short to Long Instructions – any part old vs. old only if exact match of study word

Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968) Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs; e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ? Criterion: perfect twice consecutively RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words) (

Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968) Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs; e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ? RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words) Immediate RGN (89%) worse than recall (100%) (

Recognition memory Feature-conjunction paradigm (Underwood & Zimmerman, 1973; Reinitz, Lammers, & Cochran, 1992) try to recognise exact matches rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures on the test

Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Feature lures: part old, part new Examples Study: pardon OR vodka tealeaf OR buttercup

Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Feature lures: part old, part new Examples Study: pardon OR vodka tealeaf OR buttercup Test: parka teacup

Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged Examples Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup

Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged Examples Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup Test: parka teacup

Feature-conjunction paradigm Typical pattern of “old” responses old > conjunction > feature > new Hits False Alarms (incorrect) Conjunction effect Conjunction error rate – new error rate Feature effect Feature error rate – new error rate

Dual-process theories of recognition Familiarity – fast process (automatic) Recollection – relatively slow process (consciously controlled)

Feature-conjunction paradigm Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection

Feature-conjunction paradigm Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection Familiarity pushes one toward an error Successful recollection (i.e. of a parent word) can allow one to avoid an error

Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup Test: parka teacup Recollection of parent words: par in pardon, not parka ka in vodka, not parka tea in tealeaf, not teacup cup in buttercup, not teacup

Feature-conjunction paradigm Recollection of parent compound words can be difficult but recollection-based rejections occur (Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Lampinen, Odegard, & Neuschatz, 2004)

Feature-conjunction paradigm Get feature and conjunction effects with nonverbal materials, too face drawings, Reinitz et al. (1992) face photographs, Searcy et al. (1998) abstract drawings, Kroll et al. (1996)

Feature-conjunction paradigm Hit – accomplished by familiarity or recollection Miss – happens because of a lack of familiarity and a lack of recollection False alarm – occurs due to influence of familiarity without recollection Correct rejection – either lack of familiarity or recollecting that something similar (but different) was shown earlier

Feature-conjunction paradigm Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation Divided attention (at encoding): identify number sequences while studying words recognise test words under full attention Divided attention (at retrieval): process study words under full attention identify number sequences while recognising words Full attention process study words under full attention recognise test words under full attention

Feature-conjunction paradigm Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation Reasoning: Dividing attention should take up resources, making it more difficult to use a controlled process Predition: Dividing attention should lower hit rates.

Feature-conjunction paradigm Response signal delay (or response deadline) manipulation: Short vs. Long Short – must respond quickly (under time pressure) Long – have more time to respond Reasoning: Less time to use the slower controlled process (recollection) in the recognition decisions Prediction: Should lower hit rates

Table 2 Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type Deadline Group Item TypeLongShort Old.55 (.20).34 (.21) Conjunction.23 (.18).23 (.17) Feature.12 (.15).14 (.11) Table 2 Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type Deadline Group Item TypeLongShort Old.55 (.20).34 (.21) Conjunction.23 (.18).23 (.17) Feature.12 (.15).14 (.11)

Feature-conjunction paradigm Conclusion from divided attention and response signal delay manipulations These manipulations hurt recollection but not familiarity Deficit in recollection shown as a decrease in hits (in increase in feature and conjunction errors would provide even stronger evidence)

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings