Academic
Publications
The myth of the encoding-retrieval match

The myth of the encoding-retrieval match,10.1080/09658210244000216,Memory,James S. Nairne

The myth of the encoding-retrieval match   (Citations: 31)
BibTex | RIS | RefWorks Download
Modern memory researchers rely heavily on the encoding-retrieval match, defined as the similarity between coded retrieval cues and previously encoded engrams, to explain variability in retention. The encoding-retrieval match is assumed to be causally and monotonically related to retention, although other factors (such as cue overload) presumably operate in some circumstances. I argue here that the link between the encoding-retrieval match and retention, although generally positive, is essentially correlational rather than causal—much like the link between deep/elaborative processing and retention. Empirically, increasing the functional match between a cue and a target trace can improve, have no effect, or even decrease retention performance depending on the circumstance. We cannot make unequivocal predictions about retention by appealing to the encoding-retrieval match; instead, we should be focusing our attention on the extent to which retrieval cues provide diagnostic information about target occurrence.
Journal: Memory , vol. 10, no. 5-6, pp. 389-395, 2002
Cumulative Annual
View Publication
The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.
    • ...Theories such as the transfer-appropriate processing framework (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977), the encoding specificity principle (Tulving & Thompson, 1973), and the procedural approach to memory (Kolers, 1973, 1975) all emphasize the importance of the encoding–retrieval match (for reviews, see Nairne, 2002; Roediger, Gallo, & Geraci, 2002; Roediger & Guynn, 1996)...
    • ...This finding was replicated by Dewhurst and Brandt (2007), who found that reinstatement of the generation task at test selectively enhanced the conscious recollection of studied items, as indicated by an increase in remember responses, but not one in know responses (Gardiner, 1988; Tulving, 1985)...

    Stephen A. Dewhurstet al. Investigating the encoding—retrieval match in recognition memory: Effe...

    • ...In addition to the benefits of semantic encoding, recognition memory can be facilitatedwhenthereisaperceptualmatchbetweenstudyand test(Eckeretal.,2007a,2007b;Gardineretal.,2006;Goldingeret al., 2003; Graf and Ryan, 1990; Groh-Bordin et al., 2006; Hirshmanetal.,1999;HuntandElliot,1980;Nairne,2002;Rederetal., 2002)...
    • ...Although the perceptual match between study and test may not always lead to better memory (Hunt and Elliot, 1980; Nairne, 2002), there is evidence suggesting that under the right conditions perceptual match aids recognition memory...

    Erika Nyhuset al. Semantic and perceptual effects on recognition memory: Evidence from E...

    • ...We cannot fully rule out a simple decay explanation on the basis of our data alone, but we note that research on working memory has increasingly looked from explanations based on decay (or displacement) towards accounts that emphasize interference at retrieval as the major constraint on accessing information in memory (e.g., Anderson & Neely, 1996; Crowder, 1976; see Nairne, 2002 for a recent review)...

    Andrea E. Martinet al. A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of ver...

    • ...One of the more established principles of memory is the notion that memory performance is influenced by the degree of match between the properties of a memory trace and the features of a retrieval cue (e.g., J. R. Anderson, 1983; Bower, 1967; Hintzman, 1986; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; McGeoch, 1942; Murnane, Phelps, & Malmberg, 1999; Nairne, 2002; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981; Schacter, 2001; Tulving, 1983)...
    • ...Remembering is likely to be successful when retrieval cues are uniquely connected to the desired memory (e.g., M. C. Anderson & Neely, 1996; Nairne, 2002)...
    • ...load, that affect the accessibility of the desired memory (see M. C. Anderson & Neely, 1996; Nairne, 2002; Wixted, 2004)...

    Chad S. Dodson. Retrieval-based illusory recollections: Why study-test contextual chan...

    • ...Although these hypotheses are all logically possible, investigations of capacity limits and forgetting in the domain of working memory have increasingly looked away from displacement or decay explanations and towards accounts that emphasize interference as the major constraint on accessing information in memory (e.g., Anderson & Neely, 1996; Crowder, 1976; see Nairne, 2002 for a recent review)...
    • ...Importantly, our data localize these interference e!ects to retrieval, just as basic memory research has demonstrated that both proactive and retroactive interference adversely a!ect retrieval (e.g., Anderson & Neely, 1996; Crowder, 1976; Nairne, 2002)...

    Julie A. Van Dykeet al. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension

Sort by: