1. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings

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

3. Materials Encoding Tasks Retrieval Tasks Subjects/Participants

4. Encoding / Retrieval Paradigm Retrieval Test 1 Test 2 Condition 1 Encoding Condition 2

5. Encoding / Retrieval Paradigm Retrieval Test Test Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 1 Encoding Condition 2

6. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding x Retrieval Level of Processing transfer of processing Cues during study and test weak vs. strong vs. none own cues vs. others’ cues Picture

7. Morris, Bransford, & Franks (1977) Study phase: Level-of-processing (LOP) manipulation 2 levels: rhyme condition, semantic condition (category) Test phase: Test manipulation 2 tests: rhyme test, semantic test (standard recognition) Rhyme test e.g., for studied word, bear was there a word that rhymed with care? Standard recognition test thought to tap conceptual (semantic information); e.g., was bear presented?

8. Level of processing theory predicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test

9. Level of processing theory predicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test Results: Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84

10. Level of processing theory predicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test Results: Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84

11. Level of processing theory predicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test Results: Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84 Evidence against level of processing theory.

12. Level of processing theory predicts better performance in deep LOP condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test Results: Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84

13. Alternative theory Transfer of processing Memory performance will vary depending on the amount of overlap in processing from study to test. The greater the overlap in the mental processes engaged during encoding and retrieval, the better the performance should be.

14. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding x Retrieval Level of Processing transfer of processing Cues (context) during study and test weak vs. strong vs. none own cues vs. others’ cues Picture

15. Cues during study and test: weak vs. strong vs. none Tulving and Osler (1968) 3 study conditions Ps studied 24 words in one of three conditions (1) alone (chair) (2) with weak associate (leg – chair) (3) with strong associate (table – chair)

16. Cues during study and test: weak vs. strong vs. none Tulving and Osler (1968) 3 study conditions Ps studied 24 words (1) alone (chair) (2) with weak associate (leg – chair) (3) with strong associate (table – chair) 3 test conditions (1) no cues (free recall) (2) weak associate (leg -- ) (3) strong associate (table -- )

17. Tulving and Osler (1968) 3 x 3 design (9 conditions) Test Alone Weak Strong Alone Study Weak Strong

18. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

19. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0 No benefit of a second word during encoding for free recall test.

20. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0 Strong associate retrieval cue helps a bit if word studied alone

21. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0 Strong associate retrieval cue clearly helps if the same strong associate was presented during study

22. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0 But not a good retrieval cue if study word was paired with a weak associate

23. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

24. Tulving and Osler (1968) Number of words recalled by study and test condition. Test Alone Weak Strong Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5 Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0 Performance best when study and test cues match!

25. Tulving and Osler (1968) Performance best when study and test cues match! Encoding specificity principle Retrieval cues are effective to the extent that features in the cue overlap/match those in the memory trace.

26. Tulving and Osler (1968) Performance best when study and test cues match! Encoding specificity principle Retrieval cues are effective to the extent that features in the cue overlap/match those in the memory trace. Note: Transfer of processing based on encoding specificity principle—the difference in 1977 (e.g., Morris, Bransford, & Franks) is subtle. Later, transfer of processing becomes more developed by other researchers and the name changes slightly.

27. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding x Retrieval Level of Processing transfer of processing Cues during study and test weak vs. strong vs. none own cues vs. others’ cues Picture

28. Cues during study and test own cues vs. others’ cues Mäntylä (1986) Ps saw 504 words over 3 days (168 words each day) group 1 – generate 1 property for each word e.g., banana: split group 2 – generate 3 properties for each word e.g., banana: yellow, split, nose incidental learning: didn’t know they would be tested Picture

29. Mäntylä (1986) Ps saw 504 words over 3 days (168 words each day) group 1 – generate 1 property for each word group 2 – generate 3 properties for each word Day 3 – surprise recall test for 252 words group 1 – get 1 property as retrieval cue half: own property half: someone else’s property group 2 – get 3 properties as retrieval cues half: own properties half: someone else’s properties

30. Mäntylä (1986) Proportion of words recalled by number of properties and type of test cues (properties). Test Cues (properties) Someone Own Else’s # of properties 1.61.11 generated 3.91.55

31. Mäntylä (1986) Test Cues (properties) Someone Own Else’s # of properties 1.61.11 generated 3.91.55 Own cues better than someone else’s; 3 cues better than one cue; 91% recall with own 3 cues!

32. Mäntylä (1986) Two important aspects for recall performance (prerequisites for perfect recall performance) 1) distinctiveness of cues 2) compatibility of retrieval cues to study context

33. Extra Info – not on test Breaking down results into separate components: Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84

34. Breaking down results into separate components: Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? Interaction of study and test manipulations? Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84

35. Breaking down results into separate components: Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? No Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? Interaction of study and test manipulations? Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63.55 Encoding Semantic.33.84.59

36. Breaking down results into separate components: Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? Yes Interaction of study and test manipulations? Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84.41.74

37. Breaking down results into separate components: Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? Interaction of study and test manipulations? Yes compare opposite corners:.67 vs..50 Test RhymeSemantic Rhyme.49.63 Encoding Semantic.33.84

38. Breaking down results into separate components: Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? Interaction of study and test manipulations? Does the pattern of results change across test conditions? Plot a line graph. Do the lines cross? Rhyme testSemantic test Semantic LOP Rhyme LOP

39. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings