The dual effect of context on memory of related and unrelated themes: Discrimination at encoding and cue at retrieval

Abstract

The influence of contextual factors on encoding and retrieval in recognition memory was investigated using a retroactive interference paradigm. Participants were randomly assigned to four context conditions constructed by manipulating types of presentation modality (pictures vs words) for study, interference, and test stages, respectively (ABA, ABB, AAA, & AAB). In Experiment 1 we presented unrelated items in the study and interference stages, while in Experiment 2 each stage contained items from the same semantic category. The results demonstrate a dual role for context in memory processes—at encoding as well as at retrieval. In Experiment 1 there is a hierarchical order between the four context conditions, depending on both target–test and target–interference contextual similarity. Adding a categorical context in Experiment 2 helped to specify each list and therefore better distinguish between target and interferer information, and in some conditions compensated for their perceptual similarity.

Keywords:

• Context effect
• Retroactive interference
• Encoding
• Retrieval

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted as part of a PhD dissertation by Einat Levy-Gigi at Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Notes

¹Similar results were obtained when using d’ measure [Z(hits) – Z(total false alarms] as the dependent variable, revealing a significant main effects of Encoding Similarity, F(1, 151) = 49.83, p <.001, and Retrieval Similarity, F(1, 151) = 9.97, p <.005.

²Similar results were obtained when using d’ [Z(hits) – Z(total false alarms)] as the dependent variable, revealing a significant main effects of Encoding Similarity, F(1, 145) = 18.42, p <.001, and Retrieval Similarity, F(1, 145) = 21.88, p <.001.

³Similar results were obtained when using d’ measure [Z(hits) – Z(total false alarms] as the dependent variable, revealing a significant main effects of Thematic Connection, F(1, 296) = 10.25, p <.005, and significant interaction between Thematic Connection and Encoding Similarity, F(1, 296) = 4.61, p <.05. Follow up tests showed the same trends revealing significant differences only in the same modality conditions, F(1, 144) = 9.51, p<.005, but not in the different modalities conditions, F(1, 156) = 1.14, p>.05.