Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions

1. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) 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/ Conditions Subjects/Participants

4. Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Attention – Full vs. Divided Response Deadline/Response Signal Delay Short to Long

5. Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Attention – Full vs. Divided Response Deadline/Response Signal Delay Short to Long Instructions – any part old vs. old only if exact match of study word

6. Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968) Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs; e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ? Criterion: perfect twice consecutively RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words) (

7. Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968) Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs; e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ? RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words) Immediate RGN (89%) worse than recall (100%) (

8. Recognition memory Feature-conjunction paradigm (Underwood & Zimmerman, 1973; Reinitz, Lammers, & Cochran, 1992) try to recognise exact matches rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures on the test

9. Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Feature lures: part old, part new Examples Study: pardon OR vodkatealeaf OR buttercup

10. Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Feature lures: part old, part new Examples Study: pardon OR vodkatealeaf OR buttercup Test: parka teacup

11. Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged Examples Study: pardon & vodkatealeaf & buttercup

12. Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied items to form tricky lures Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged Examples Study: pardon & vodkatealeaf & buttercup Test: parka teacup

13. Feature-conjunction paradigm Typical pattern of “old” responses old > conjunction > feature > new Hits False Alarms (incorrect) Conjunction effect Conjunction error rate – new error rate Feature effect Feature error rate – new error rate

14. Dual-process theories of recognition Familiarity – fast process (automatic) Recollection – relatively slow process (consciously controlled)

15. Feature-conjunction paradigm Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection

16. Feature-conjunction paradigm Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection Familiarity pushes one toward an error Successful recollection (i.e. of a parent word) can allow one to avoid an error

17. Study: pardon & vodkatealeaf & buttercup Test: parka teacup Recollection of parent words: par in pardon, not parka ka in vodka, not parka tea in tealeaf, not teacup cup in buttercup, not teacup

18. Feature-conjunction paradigm Recollection of parent compound words can be difficult but recollection-based rejections occur (Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Lampinen, Odegard, & Neuschatz, 2004)

19. Feature-conjunction paradigm Get feature and conjunction effects with nonverbal materials, too face drawings, Reinitz et al. (1992) face photographs, Searcy et al. (1998) abstract drawings, Kroll et al. (1996)

28. Feature-conjunction paradigm Hit – accomplished by familiarity or recollection Miss – happens because of a lack of familiarity and a lack of recollection False alarm – occurs due to influence of familiarity without recollection Correct rejection – either lack of familiarity or recollecting that something similar (but different) was shown earlier

29. Feature-conjunction paradigm Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation Divided attention (at encoding): identify number sequences while studying words recognise test words under full attention Divided attention (at retrieval): process study words under full attention identify number sequences while recognising words Full attention process study words under full attention recognise test words under full attention

30. Feature-conjunction paradigm Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation Reasoning: Dividing attention should take up resources, making it more difficult to use a controlled process Predition: Dividing attention should lower hit rates.

32. Feature-conjunction paradigm Response signal delay (or response deadline) manipulation: Short vs. Long Short – must respond quickly (under time pressure) Long – have more time to respond Reasoning: Less time to use the slower controlled process (recollection) in the recognition decisions Prediction: Should lower hit rates

33. Table 2Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type Deadline GroupItem Type Long Short Old .55 (.20) .34 (.21)Conjunction .23 (.18) .23 (.17)Feature .12 (.15) .14 (.11) Table 2 Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type Deadline Group Item Type Long Short Old .55 (.20) .34 (.21) Conjunction .23 (.18) .23 (.17) Feature .12 (.15) .14 (.11)

34. Feature-conjunction paradigm Conclusion from divided attention and response signal delay manipulations These manipulations hurt recollection but not familiarity Deficit in recollection shown as a decrease in hits (in increase in feature and conjunction errors would provide even stronger evidence)

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