ArticlePublisher preview available

Source-Constrained Recall: Front-End and Back-End Control of Retrieval Quality

DOI:10.1037/a0025053
Authors:
Vered Halamish at Bar Ilan University
Vered Halamish
Morris Goldsmith at University of Haifa
Morris Goldsmith
Larry L. Jacoby
Larry L. Jacoby
Larry L. Jacoby
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Research on the strategic regulation of memory accuracy has focused primarily on monitoring and control processes used to edit out incorrect information after it is retrieved (back-end control). Recent studies, however, suggest that rememberers also enhance accuracy by preventing the retrieval of incorrect information in the first place (front-end control). The present study put forward and examined a mechanism called source-constrained recall (cf. Jacoby, Shimizu, Velanova, & Rhodes, 2005) by which rememberers process and use recall cues in qualitatively different ways, depending on the manner of original encoding. Results of 2 experiments in which information about source encoding depth was made available at test showed that when possible, participants constrained recall to the solicited targets by reinstating the original encoding operations on the recall cues. This reinstatement improved the quality of the information that came to mind, which, together with improved postretrieval monitoring, enhanced actual recall performance.
  • A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
  • Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Source-Constrained Recall:
Front-End and Back-End Control of Retrieval Quality
Vered Halamish and Morris Goldsmith
University of Haifa Larry L. Jacoby
Washington University in St. Louis
Research on the strategic regulation of memory accuracy has focused primarily on monitoring and
control processes used to edit out incorrect information after it is retrieved (back-end control). Recent
studies, however, suggest that rememberers also enhance accuracy by preventing the retrieval of incorrect
information in the first place (front-end control). The present study put forward and examined a
mechanism called source-constrained recall (cf. Jacoby, Shimizu, Velanova, & Rhodes, 2005) by which
rememberers process and use recall cues in qualitatively different ways, depending on the manner of
original encoding. Results of 2 experiments in which information about source encoding depth was made
available at test showed that when possible, participants constrained recall to the solicited targets by
reinstating the original encoding operations on the recall cues. This reinstatement improved the quality
of the information that came to mind, which, together with improved postretrieval monitoring, enhanced
actual recall performance.
Keywords: memory, metacognition, source-constrained retrieval, recall accuracy
Quality control in manufacturing can be achieved either by a
postproduction monitoring process, which identifies and screens
out defects at the “back end,” or by investing in improved pro-
duction techniques at the “front end,” so that fewer defects are
produced in the first place. Jacoby and colleagues (e.g., Jacoby,
Shimizu, Daniels, & Rhodes, 2005; Shimizu & Jacoby, 2005)
proposed this metaphor as a useful way of viewing the quality
control of memory accuracy, emphasizing that both types of mem-
ory functions—pre- and postproduction—can be strategically reg-
ulated by the rememberer. Building on this idea, in the present
study we examined the front-end and back-end control of memory
recall quality.
Back-End Control of Memory Quality
Accuracy-oriented memory research, focusing on memory qual-
ity rather than quantity (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996a, 1996b; Ko-
riat, Goldsmith, & Pansky, 2000; Roediger, 1996), has emphasized
the back-end control of memory quality: postretrieval monitoring
and verification processes used to identify and screen out false
memories. This emphasis is well illustrated in the highly influen-
tial source-monitoring framework (e.g., Johnson, Hashtroudi, &
Lindsay, 1993), which assigns a primary role to postretrieval
monitoring processes in attributing the information that comes to
mind to a particular source. Accurate memory results from correct
source-monitoring decisions, whereas false memories stem from
source confusions or reality-monitoring errors. Other frameworks
that emphasize postretrieval monitoring attributions and decisions
are Jacoby, Kelley, and Dywan’s (1989; Kelley & Jacoby 1998;
Kelley & Rhodes, 2002) attributional framework, Whittlesea’s
(1997, 2002) SCAPE (production–evaluation) framework, and
proposed memory editing mechanisms such as the distinctiveness
heuristic (Dodson & Schacter, 2001, 2002; but see Gallo, Weiss, &
Schacter, 2004) and recollection rejection (Brainerd, Reyna,
Wright, & Mojardin, 2003).
Work by Koriat and Goldsmith (1994, 1996c; see Goldsmith &
Koriat, 2008, for a review) has emphasized the role of postretrieval
monitoring and control processes in free-report situations, in which
rememberers regulate the accuracy and quantity of the information
that they report from memory, either by withholding answers that
are likely to be wrong (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1994, 1996c) or by
choosing a level of precision or coarseness (grain size) at which
the answers are likely to be correct (Goldsmith, Koriat, & Pansky,
2005; Goldsmith, Koriat, & Weinberg-Eliezer, 2002). This work is
based on a model of the postretrieval metamemory processes
underlying the strategic regulation of memory accuracy and quan-
tity performance (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996c): When attempting
to recount past events, people first monitor the subjective likeli-
hood that each item of information that comes to mind is correct
and then apply a report criterion to the monitoring output in order
to decide whether to volunteer the item. The setting of the report
This article was published Online First August 22, 2011.
Vered Halamish and Morris Goldsmith, Department of Psychology,
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; Larry L. Jacoby, Department of Psy-
chology, Washington University in St. Louis.
This research was supported by United States–Israel Binational Science
Foundation Grant 2005356. Facilities for conducting the research were
provided by the Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making,
University of Haifa, and by the Max Wertheimer Minerva Center for
Cognitive Processes and Human Performance. The article is based in part
on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Haifa by Vered
Halamish. We thank Adi Goldberg, Rotem Kahalon, and Naama Mizrahi
for their help in running the experiments. We also thank Phil Higham and
Jeff Toth for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vered
Halamish or Morris Goldsmith, Department of Psychology, University of
Haifa, 31095 Haifa, Israel. E-mail: halamish@research.haifa.ac.il or
mgold@research.haifa.ac.il
Journal of Experimental Psychology: © 2011 American Psychological Association
Learning, Memory, and Cognition
2012, Vol. 38, No. 1, 1–15 0278-7393/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025053
1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
... Framed in this way, the challenge of recalling from earlier lists is to avoid using current context to recall recent items and instead use it to distinguish recent from non-recent items (e.g., Jang and Huber, 2008;Lohnas et al., 2015). This distinction may be enabled by back-and front-end control processes that subjects can leverage to strategically regulate their memory accuracy (Burgess and Shallice, 1996;Goldsmith, 2016;Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby et al., 1999Johnson and Raye, 2000;Morcom, 2016). ...
... Subjects studied two 10-item lists that were separated by a short break (i.e., a prompt indicating the start of List 2). At the end of the second list, they were instructed to recall from only List 1, only List 2, or both List 1 and List 2. Here, we focus on the condition where they were instructed to recall non-recent events from List 1, and therefore were tasked to overcome retroactive interference from List 2 contexts from coming to mind (e.g., source-constrained retrieval; Halamish et al., 2012;. Evidence that front-end control can improve response production quality has been observed in recall tasks where multiple candidates are solicited using a "retrieve and report" procedure. ...
... This procedure has shown that experience-driven reduction of proactive interference leads to more target-list responses coming to mind first (Wahlheim and Jacoby, 2011). In addition, after studying lists with separate deep and shallow encoding instructions, subjects produced more target-list responses first when source information was provided during cued recall (Halamish et al., 2012). These findings converge in showing that front-end guidance of retrieval constraints can improve subjects' ability to target specific context features. ...
PEPPR: A post-encoding pre-production reinstatement model of dual-list free recall
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2023
Recent events are easy to recall, but they also interfere with the recall of more distant, non-recent events. In many computational models, non-recent memories are recalled by using the context associated with those events as a cue. Some models, however, do little to explain how people initially activate non-recent contexts in the service of accurate recall. We addressed this limitation by evaluating two candidate mechanisms within the Context-Maintenance and Retrieval model. The first is a Backward-Walk mechanism that iteratively applies a generate/recognize process to covertly retrieve progressively less recent items. The second is a Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) mechanism that formally implements a metacognitive control process that reinstates non-recent contexts prior to retrieval. Models including these mechanisms make divergent predictions about the dynamics of response production and monitoring when recalling non-recent items. Before producing non-recent items, Backward-Walk cues covert retrievals of several recent items, whereas PEPPR cues few, if any, covert retrievals of that sort. We tested these predictions using archival data from a dual-list externalized free recall paradigm that required subjects to report all items that came to mind while recalling from the non-recent list. Simulations showed that only the model including PEPPR accurately predicted covert recall patterns. That same model fit the behavioral data well. These findings suggest that self-initiated context reinstatement plays an important role in recall of non-recent memories and provides a formal model that uses a parsimonious non-hierarchical context representation of how such reinstatement might occur.
View
... To participants' surprise, there was a recognition test for semantic foils, non-semantic foils, and completely new words (Phase 3). Behaviorally, the recognition performance for "foil" words was significantly better for the semantic compared to the non-semantic condition (Jacoby et al., 2005;Danckert et al., 2011;Halamish et al., 2012;Messmer et al., 2020;Salhi and Bergstrom, 2020). Based on brain imaging, Vogelsang et al. (2016) revealed significant overlap in activities between Phases 1 and 2 for the semantic block in the left inferior frontal gyrus. ...
... Vogelsang et al. (2018) also observed that constrained retrieval of semantic information involved re-implementing semantic encoding operations mediated by alpha oscillations. It has thus been proposed that retrieval is strategically oriented toward the relevant processing mode to facilitate memory search (Jacoby et al., 2005;Halamish et al., 2012;Vogelsang et al., 2016, 2018. Jacoby et al., 2005 state that recognition often involves sourceconstrained retrieval. ...
... Jacoby et al., 2005 state that recognition often involves sourceconstrained retrieval. The explanation for better incidental encoding of semantic foils compared to non-semantic foils is that the participants strategically constrain their retrieval to match a semantic processing mode while attempting to recognize semantic probe words, and a non-semantic processing mode while recognizing non-semantic information (Marsh et al., 2009;Alban and Kelley, 2012;Halamish et al., 2012). This viewpoint is similar to the concept of "retrieval orientation" in Rugg and Wilding (2000), which refers to the type of processing that participants engage in when they are prompted with a retrieval cue to increase the likelihood of retrieval success. ...
Effect of familiarity and recollection during constrained retrieval on incidental encoding for new “foil” information
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
Behavioral studies have demonstrated differences in the effect of constrained retrieval of semantic vs. non-semantic information on the encoding of foils. However, the impact of recognition on foils between semantic and non-semantic trials remains unclear. This study thus examines the roles of recognition—familiarity and recollection—in constrained retrieval for foils. We applied the event-related brain potentials (ERPs) data of new/old effects to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying the “foil effect.” Participants encoded semantic and non-semantic tasks (Phase 1), were tested in a blocked memory task with new words presented as foils (Phase 2), and performed a surprise recognition task involving foils and completely new words (Phase 3). Behavioral results showed better recognition performance regarding reaction times and accuracy by hit and correct reject for semantic vs. non-semantic trials in Phase 2. Conversely, inferior recognition performance in reaction times and accuracy by hit and correct reject was noted for semantic vs. non-semantic foils in Phase 3. ERP results showed more positive Frontal N400 (FN400) for hit in non-semantic trials, more positive late positive component (LPC) for correct rejects in semantic trials in Phase 2, and more positive LPC for hits in both semantic and non-semantic trials only in Phase 3. Through dual-processing theory, we prove that different task types in constrained retrieval depend on different retrieval processes. Particularly, familiarity may be applied more often in non-semantic trials, and recollection in semantic trials. The difference in processes between semantic and non-semantic trials during constrained retrieval affects incidental encoding of foils.
View
... Does motivation to remember also yield selective processing during retrieval? Evidence suggests that rememberers can control various aspects of retrieval by constraining up-front the information that comes to mind during a memory search or by constraining the report of the retrieved information at the back end (Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby, Shimizu, Velanova, & Rhodes, 2005b;Koriat et al., 2008). When confronted with a memory query, people initially decide whether to initiate or forgo a memory search based on their preliminary feeling of knowing (Glucksberg & McCloskey, 1981;Reder, 1987). ...
... Moreover, rememberers can control the strategy that they use to search their memory (Williams & Hollan, 1981). Young adults, for example, control the depth in which they process retrieval cues and tend to reinstate the encoding operations at test (Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, & Rhodes, 2005a;Jacoby, Shimizu, Velanova, & Rhodes, 2005b;Shimizu & Jacoby, 2005). After information has been retrieved from memory, rememberers can control whether and how to report it by withholding retrieved information that they are not confident about (e.g., Bulevich & Thomas, 2012;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996;Postma, 1999) or by controlling the level of precision or coarseness (grain size) in which they report that information (e.g., Goldsmith et al., 2002Goldsmith et al., , 2005Weber & Brewer, 2008). ...
... Taken together, these results demonstrate that motivation to remember affects how rememberers approach and execute a memory search. Motivation to remember thus elicits selective processing at the front end of retrieval (Halamish et al., 2012), beyond the previously demonstrated motivation-based selective processing at the back end, during memory reporting (e.g., Bulevich & Thomas, 2012;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996;Thomas et al., 2020). ...
Motivation-based selective encoding and retrieval
Article
  • Dec 2021
Rememberers are often motivated to remember certain pieces of information more than they are motivated to remember other pieces. The literature suggests that this motivation results in selective remembering of valuable information and that it yields selective processing of this valuable information during encoding. However, the question of whether or not motivation to remember also elicits selective processing during retrieval is relatively underexplored. To fill this gap, two experiments examined the effect of incentive-based motivation to remember target information on selective encoding and retrieval processes using a paradigm that allowed participants to self-regulate their learning and cued-recall testing under relatively naturalistic settings. The results revealed that motivation yielded selective remembering of the target information and selective processing during encoding (i.e., selective allocation of study time, selective restudy, and selective control over study order), consistent with prior findings. Importantly, the results also revealed that motivation yielded selective processing during retrieval, as rememberers allocated more time to test queries about target information that they were motivated to remember and tended to start the test with these queries. These findings suggest that motivation affects how rememberers answer a cued-recall memory test. More generally, the current research demonstrates that by manipulating motivation and investigating self-regulated learning and remembering, research can advance our understanding of the intricate relationship between motivation, memory, and metacognition.
View
... Two qualitatively different cognitive control processes from the metacognition literature suggest different ways that context might be used to make this distinction: frontversus back-end control (Burgess & Shallice, 1996;Goldsmith, 2016;Halamish, Goldsmith, & Jacoby, 2012;Jacoby, Kelley, & McElree, 1999;Jacoby et al., 2005;Johnson & Raye, 2000;Morcom, 2016). Back-end processes are used to guide report decisions after subjects monitor the source of retrieved representations. ...
... By contrast, front-end processes operate before retrieval attempts to specify the context (i.e., source) from which candidate responses should be produced. Such specification enables cue-dependent retrieval from long-term memory representations from target contexts (Tulving, 1983;Tulving & Thompson, 1973) and prevents memories from non-target contexts from coming to mind (e.g., source-constrained retrieval; Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby et al., 2005). Below we discuss the potential roles of these processes in the dynamics of retrieving non-recent memories. ...
A Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) Model of Dual-List Free Recall
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Jun 2021
Recent events are easy to recall, but they also interfere with recall of more distant, non-recent events. Many computational models recall non-recent memories by using the context associated with those events as a cue. But some models do little to explain how people initially activate non-recent contexts in the service of accurate recall. We addressed this limitation by evaluating two candidate mechanisms within the Context-Maintenance and Retrieval model. The first is a Backward-Walk mechanism that iteratively applies a generate/recognize process to covertly retrieve progressively less recent items. The second is a Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) mechanism that formally implements a metacognitive control process that reinstates non-recent contexts prior to retrieval. Models including these mechanisms make divergent predictions about the dynamics of response production and monitoring when recalling non-recent items. Before producing non-recent items, Backward-Walk cues covert retrievals of several recent items, whereas PEPPR cues few, if any, covert retrievals of that sort. We tested these predictions using archival data from a dual-list externalized free recall paradigm that required subjects to report all items that came to mind while recalling from the non-recent list. Simulations showed that only the model including PEPPR accurately predicted covert recall patterns. That same model fit the behavioral data well. These findings suggest that self-initiated context reinstatement plays an important role in recall of non-recent memories and provides a formal model that uses a parsimonious non-hierarchical context representation of how such reinstatement might occur.
View
... For example, in the context maintenance and retrieval model, memory search during free recall involves reinstatement of temporal or semantic context (Polyn et al., 2009). Jacoby and others have also proposed that internal pre-retrieval control constitutes a form of proactive 'early selection' that may be more effective at preventing memory errors than reactive 'late correction' processes such as retrieval monitoring (Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby, Kelley & McElree, 1999;Jacoby et al., 2005;Morcom, 2015). Indirect behavioral evidence for mental reinstatement comes from the finding that instructions enabling internal control can have similar effects to external cues: reinstating environmental context no longer boosts memory when participants can imagine the original context for themselves, suggesting that people can mentally reinstate context to trigger recall of desired information (Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002;Smith, 1979;Smith & Vela, 2001;Starns & Hicks, 2013). ...
View
... For example, in the context maintenance and retrieval model, memory search during free recall involves reinstatement of temporal or semantic context (Polyn et al., 2009). Jacoby and others also have proposed that internal pre-retrieval control constitutes a form of proactive "early selection" that may be more effective at preventing memory errors than reactive "late correction" processes, such as retrieval monitoring (Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby, Kelley & McElree, 1999;Jacoby et al., 2005;Morcom, 2015). Indirect behavioral evidence for mental reinstatement comes from the finding that instructions enabling internal control can have similar effects to external cues: reinstating environmental context no longer boosts memory when participants can imagine the original context for themselves, suggesting that people can mentally reinstate context to trigger recall of desired information (Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002;Smith, 1979;Smith & Vela, 2001;Starns & Hicks, 2013). ...
Cue overlap supports preretrieval selection in episodic memory: ERP evidence
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2021
People often want to recall events of a particular kind, but this selective remembering is not always possible. We contrasted two candidate mechanisms: the overlap between retrieval cues and stored memory traces, and the ease of recollection. In two preregistered experiments ( N s = 28), we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to quantify selection occurring before retrieval and the goal states — retrieval orientations — thought to achieve this selection. Participants viewed object pictures or heard object names, and one of these sources was designated as targets in each memory test. We manipulated cue overlap by probing memory with visual names (Experiment 1) or line drawings (Experiment 2). Results revealed that regardless of which source was targeted, the left parietal ERP effect indexing recollection was selective when test cues overlapped more with the targeted than non-targeted information, despite consistently better memory for pictures. ERPs for unstudied items also were more positive-going when cue overlap was high, suggesting that engagement of retrieval orientations reflected availability of external cues matching the targeted source. The data support the view that selection can act before recollection if there is sufficient overlap between retrieval cues and targeted versus competing memory traces.
View
... Therefore, subjects search memory differently when their task is to recognize items that were encoded with a semantic task than when the task is to recognize perceptually encoded items (Kantner & Lindsay, 2013). Jacoby and colleagues (e.g., Halamish et al., 2012;Jacoby et al., 2005) use the notion of sourceconstrained retrieval for a kind of early selection in which the retrieval processing is constrained in a way that recapitulates study processing (cf. Alban & Kelly, 2012;Danckert et al., 2011;Marsh et al., 2009). ...
Closing the door to false memory: the effects of levels-of-processing and stimulus type on the rejection of perceptually vs. semantically dissimilar distractors
Article
Full-text available
False recognition memory for nonstudied items that share features with targets can be reduced by retrieval monitoring mechanisms. The recall-to-reject process, for example, involves the recollection of information about studied items that disqualifies inconsistent test probes. Monitoring for specific features during retrieval may be enhanced by an encoding orientation that is recapitulated during retrieval. In two experiments, we used concrete words or door scenes as materials and manipulated the level of processing at study and the type of distractors presented at test. We showed that for the verbal material, semantic level of processing at study results in an effective rejection of semantically inconsistent distractors. However, for the pictorial material, the perceptual level of processing leads to an effective rejection of perceptually inconsistent distractors. For targets, the effect of levels of processing was observed for words but not for pictures. The results suggest that retrieval monitoring mechanisms depend on interactions between encoding orientation, study materials, and differentiating features of distractors.
View
... In addition to the six processing stages described above, strategic memory processes are also thought to be crucial for accurate memorydriven responses (Halamish et al., 2012;Henson et al, 1999Henson et al, , 2000Rugg and Wilding, 2000). That is, when presented with a retrieval cue such as "who did you go to the concert with?", the ensuing memory search needs to be directed toward goal-appropriate information (i.e. ...
When the brain, but not the person, remembers: Cortical reinstatement is modulated by retrieval goal in developmental amnesia
Article
Full-text available
Developmental amnesia (DA) is associated with early hippocampal damage and subsequent episodic amnesia emerging in childhood alongside age-appropriate development of semantic knowledge. We employed fMRI to assess whether patients with DA show evidence of 'cortical reinstatement', a neural correlate of episodic memory, despite their amnesia. At study, 23 participants (5 patients) were presented with words overlaid on a scene or a scrambled image for later recognition. Scene reinstatement was indexed by scene memory effects (greater activity for previously presented words paired with a scene rather than scrambled images) that overlapped with scene perception effects. Patients with DA demonstrated scene reinstatement effects in the parahippocampal and retrosplenial cortex that were equivalent to those shown by healthy controls. Behaviourally, however, patients with DA showed markedly impaired scene memory. The data indicate that reinstatement can occur despite hippocampal damage, but that cortical reinstatement is insufficient to support accurate memory performance. Furthermore, scene reinstatement effects were diminished during a retrieval task in which scene information was not relevant for accurate responding, indicating that strategic mnemonic processes operate normally in DA. The data suggest that cortical reinstatement of trial-specific contextual information is decoupled from the experience of recollection in the presence of severe hippocampal atrophy.
View
... In addition to the six processing stages described above, strategic memory processes are also thought to be crucial for accurate memory-driven responses (Halamish et al., 2012;Henson et al., 2000Henson et al., , 1999Rugg and Wilding, 2000). That is, when presented with a retrieval cue such as "who did you go to the concert with?", the ensuing memory search needs to be directed toward goal-appropriate information (i.e. ...
When the brain, but not the person, remembers: Cortical reinstatement is modulated by retrieval goal in developmental amnesia,To appear in: Neuropsychologia.
Preprint
Full-text available
Developmental amnesia (DA) is associated with early hippocampal damage and subsequent episodic amnesia emerging in childhood alongside age-appropriate development of semantic knowledge. We employed fMRI to assess whether patients with DA show evidence of ‘cortical reinstatement’, a neural correlate of episodic memory, despite their amnesia. At study, 23 participants (5 patients) were presented with words overlaid on a scene or a scrambled image for later recognition. Scene reinstatement was indexed by scene memory effects (greater activity for previously presented words paired with a scene rather than scrambled images) that overlapped with scene perception effects. Patients with DA demonstrated scene reinstatement effects in the parahippocampal and retrosplenial cortex that were equivalent to those shown by healthy controls. Behaviourally, however, patients with DA showed markedly impaired scene memory. The data indicate that reinstatement can occur despite hippocampal damage, but that cortical reinstatement is insufficient to support accurate memory performance. Furthermore, scene reinstatement effects were diminished during a retrieval task in which scene information was not relevant for accurate responding, indicating that strategic mnemonic processes operate normally in DA. The data suggest that cortical reinstatement of trial-specific contextual information is decoupled from the experience of recollection in the presence of severe hippocampal atrophy.
View
Varying retrieval conditions to study survival processing
Article
  • May 2022
The survival processing advantage is a mnemonic benefit resulting from processing items for their relevance to survival. One explanation of the survival processing advantage is the richness-of-encoding hypothesis: Survival processing enhances retention by generating ideas (elaborative and distinctive processing), increasing the number of retrieval cues. Without retrieval, encoding is futile. Hence, the present experiments varied retrieval conditions - via transfer appropriate processing (TAP) tasks - predicting that the survival processing advantage could be reversed. In Experiment 1a, reducing the transfer appropriateness of survival processing caused significantly lower recognition scores after survival processing than after processing of word associates. Experiment 1b replicated a survival processing advantage and found a survival processing disadvantage. In Experiment 2, survival processing was pitted against a gift desirability task and retrieval mode was varied. Survival processing yielded superior memory on a standard free recall test, but the survival processing advantage was eliminated when an unusual retrieval mode was encouraged. Results affirm the importance of context-dependent retrieval.
View
Monitoring and Control Processes in the Strategic Regulation of Memory Accuracy
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 1996
When people are allowed freedom to volunteer or withhold information, they can enhance the accuracy of their memory reports substantially relative to forced-report performance. A theoretical framework addressing the strategic regulation of memory reporting is put forward that delineates the mediating role of metamemorial monitoring and control processes. Although the enhancement of memory accuracy is generally accompanied by a reduction in memory quantity, experimental and simulation results indicate that both of these effects depend critically on (a) accuracy incentive and (b) monitoring effectiveness. The results are discussed with regard to the contribution of metamemory processes to memory performance, and a general methodology is proposed that incorporates these processes into the assessment of memory-accuracy and memory-quantity performance.
View
Detection Theory: A User's Guide
Book
Full-text available
  • Aug 2021
Detection Theory: A User’s Guide is an introduction to one of the most important tools for the analysis of data where choices must be made and performance is not perfect. In these cases, detection theory can transform judgments about subjective experiences, such as perceptions and memories, into quantitative data ready for analysis and modeling. For beginners, the first three chapters introduce measuring detection and discrimination, evaluating decision criteria, and the utility of receiver operating characteristics. Later chapters cover more advanced research paradigms, including: complete tools for application, including flowcharts, tables, and software; student-friendly language; complete coverage of content area, including both one-dimensional and multidimensional models; integrated treatment of threshold and nonparametric approaches; an organized, tutorial-level introduction to multidimensional detection theory; and popular discrimination paradigms presented as applications of multidimensional detection theory. This modern summary of signal detection theory is both a self-contained reference work for users and a readable text for graduate students and researchers learning the material either in courses or on their own.
View
View
View
Strategic memory search processes
Chapter
  • Sep 1986
Autobiographical memory is a major form of human memory. it is the basis of most psycotherapies, an important repository of legal, historical, and literary information, and, in some views, the source of the concept of self. When it fails, it is the focus of serious complaints in many neurological disorders. This timely book brings together and integrates the best contemporary work on the cognitive psychology of autobiographical memory. Introductory chapters place the study of autobiographical memory in its historical, methodological, and theoretical contexts; chapters reporting original research probe the recollections people have for substantial portions of their lives. Topics include the schematic and temporal organization of autobiographical memory, the temporal distribution of autobiographical memories, and the failures of autobiographical memory in various forms of amnesia. Autobiographical Memory constitutes the first tutorial in this exciting new area of research. Cognitive psychologists, clinicians, researchers in artificial intelligence, and their students - indeed, anyone interested in the processes that preserve and distort autobiography - will find it a useful resource.
View
View
View
View
View
View