Contextual Recall Research Articles

Retrieval dynamics in recognition and list discrimination: further evidence of separate processes of familiarity and recall.

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that the time course of retrieval from memory is different for familiarity and recall. The response-signal method was used to compare memory retrieval dynamics in yes-no recognition memory, as a measure of familiarity, with those of list discrimination, as a measure of contextual recall. Responses were always made with regard to membership in two previous study lists. In Experiment 1 an exclusion task requiring positive responses to words from one list and negative responses to new words and words from the nontarget list was used. In Experiment 2, recognition and list discrimination were separate tasks. Retrieval curves from both experiments were consistent, showing that the minimal retrieval time for recognition was about 100 msec faster than that for list discrimination. Repetition affected asymptotic performance but had no reliable effects on retrieval dynamics in either the recognition or the list-discrimination task.

Mental reinstatement of context: A technique for interviewing child witnesses

AbstractThe effectiveness of mental reinstatement of context as a technique for interviewing child witnesses was examined. Adult, 6‐year‐olds and 11 ‐year‐olds viewed a film and were interviewed in one of three conditions; (1) free recall, (2) mental reinstatement of the context in which the film was viewed or (3) a series of specific questions about the film. In terms of correct information recalled, mental reinstatement of context and specific questions produced more correct responses than did free recall. In terms of errors of commission, specific questions produced more responses than either free recall or mental reinstatement of context. Age‐related increases in both correct and incorrect responses were found supporting some previous findings. The implications of these results in terms of children's eyewitness memory were discussed, and future research directions were indicated.

Developmental Changes in Event Memory

Do developmental differences exist in children's organization of event memories? We explored this question by examining children's recall of standard features of a repeated event versus features that deviated from that event. 4- and 7-year-old children experienced an initially unfamiliar laboratory event (standard event) 1 or 3 times. Following the last visit, deviations from the standard event were introduced (deviation event). Children's recall was assessed 1 week later under free recall and contextual recall conditions. Younger children had more difficulty than older children distinguishing between the standard and deviation visits. That is, 4-year-olds were more confused regarding which event features occurred in the different event visits. 7-year-olds, in contrast, did a better job of correctly remembering the features of the standard and deviation visits. Implications for developmental changes in the organization of general and specific event memory are discussed.

Developmental Changes in Event Memory

Do developmental differences exist in children's organization of event memories? We explored this question by examining children's recall of standard features of a repeated event versus features that deviated from that event. 4- and 7-year-old children experienced an initially unfamiliar laboratory event (standard event) 1 or 3 times. Following the last visit, deviations from the standard event were introduced (deviation event). Children's recall was assessed 1 week later under free recall and contextual recall conditions. Younger children had more difficulty than older children distinguishing between the standard and deviation visits. That is, 4-year-olds were more confused regarding which event features occurred in the different event visits. 7-year-olds, in contrast, did a better job of correctly remembering the features of the standard and deviation visits. Implications for developmental changes in the organization of general and specific event memory are discussed.

Producing reducible 3-manifolds by surgery on a knot

IT HAS long been conjectured that surgery on a knot in S3 yields a reducible 3-manifold if and only if the knot is cabled, with the cabling annulus part of the reducing sphere (cf. [7.8, 9, 10, 111). One may regard the Poenaru conjecture (solved in [S]) as a special case of the above. More generally, one can ask when surgery on a knot in an arbitary 3-manifold A4 produces a reducible 3-manifold M’. But this problem is too complex, since, dually, it asks which knots in which manifolds arise from surgery on reducible 3-manifolds. In this paper we are able to show, approximately, that if M itself either contains a summand not a rational homology sphere or is a-reducible, and M’ is reducible, then k must have been cabled and the surgery is via the slope of the cabling annulus. Thus the result stops short of proving the conjecture for M = S3, but (see below) does suffice to prove the conjecture for satellite knots. The results here are broader than this; for a context recall the main result of [3]: GABAI’S THEOREM. Let k be a knot in M = D2 x S’ with nonzero wrapping number. If_ci’ is a manifold obtained by non-trivial surgery on k then one of the following must hold: (1) M = D2 x S’ = M’ and both k and k’ are 0 or l-bridge braids. (2) M’ = WI # W,, where W2 is a closed 3-manifold and H, ( W,) isjnite and non-tritial. (3) M’ is irreducible and aM ‘ is incompressible. It is this theorem we generalize to many other manifolds M. We also examine case (2) and show that it only arises (i.e. M’ is only reducible) if k is cabled with cabling annulus having the slope of the surgery. (For a detailed look at case (I), see [6] or Cl].) Specifically we have:

CHOLINERGIC ‘BLOCKADE’ AS A MODEL FOR CHOLINERGIC DEPLETION

The effect of cholinergic 'blockade' on human memory performance as a model for the effect of cholinergic depletion in clinical disorders was investigated. A wide range of memory functions was assessed in 70 subjects, using tests which were identical or closely similar to those which have previously been employed in clinical studies of Alzheimer and Korsakoff patients. In addition, a physiological measure of the degree of central cholinergic blockade was included, as well as measures of subjective arousal and objective attention. It was found that cholinergic blockade had no significant effect on the more passive aspects of primary (or 'working') memory, namely span tests and a measure of verbal short-term forgetting; in this, it contrasts with the marked deficits seen in Alzheimer-type dementia. On the other hand, cholinergic blockade produced impairment at a visuospatial short-term forgetting test, and at a verbal test in which the distractor task was made more difficult. On tests of secondary memory, cholinergic blockade produced a pattern similar to that seen in the anterograde amnesia of Alzheimer and Korsakoff patients, namely a pronounced impairment in learning verbal and visuospatial material, a 'normal' forgetting rate once learning had been accomplished, and relative preservation of the response to priming and of skill learning (procedural memory). Cholinergic blockade, however, did not produce a retrograde amnesia, nor did it affect the recall of temporal context or of long-established semantic knowledge. This pattern of results is compared with that obtained in previous studies of Alzheimer and Korsakoff patients.

The influence of trait and physical-feature-based orienting strategies on aspects of facial memory.

This paper describes a series of incidental learning experiments in which facial memory is assessed following either a 'connotative feature' task (how likable is this person?) or a 'distinctive feature task' (what is the most prominent physical feature of this face?). Subjects saw each target face in a different environmental setting (e.g. pub, carpark) and their memory was tested in two ways: an old/new recognition test, in which each target face was presented in mugshot form (i.e. devoid of the original context), and a second context recall or recognition test in which subjects' ability to remember the environmental context in which each face had appeared was examined. The results showed five important findings: (1) subjects performed the connotative task significantly faster than the distinctive features task; (2) recognition accuracy measured in various ways was identical in the two orienting conditions; (3) recognition latencies to targets and distractors in the yes/no recognition test were significantly faster following connotative processing; (4) recognition latencies to target faces presented in context during learning were significantly faster than targets initially presented devoid of context following connotative processing but not following distinctive features orientation; and (5) context recall and recognition were significantly and substantially higher following connotative processing. These data are discussed in terms of Winograd's (1981) assertion that connotative and physical-feature-based orienting tasks induce the same type of encoding.

Encoding Task and Trace Specificity with Respect to Sensory, Semantic, and Contextual Recall Cues

Summary This study examines the effects of a word judgment task that can be performed at either the semantic or sensory level on the subsequent effectiveness of sensory, semantic, and contextual recall cues. Four experiments are reported, each contrasting the effectiveness of two cue types in university undergradutes (respective ns = 86, 96, 96, 96). The data are analyzed using both traditional and reduction method analyses. In general, the results suggest that all three types of cues are more effective following a semantic versus a sensory level task. Both traditional and reduction method analyses show a decrease in trace specificity with respect to the types of cues studied when Ss switch from a sensory to a semantic level task. Implications for current theories of cued recall are discussed.

Effects of modality and similarity on context recall.

Effects of modality and similarity on context recall.