Controlled semantic encoding and the effect of repetition lag on free recall

Johnston, William; Coots, James H.; Flickinger, Robert G.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80013-6

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of earlier studies had tested the interaction between encoding variability and spacing by using homographs whose various meanings were biased by the encoding context. Most of these studies failed to support the predictions derivable from an encoding variability (i.e., component-levels) hypothesis (e.g., 0 'Agostino & DeRemer, 1973;Johnston, Coots, & Flickinger, 1972;Madigan, 1969;Thios, 1972). For this reason, it was felt that a fairer test of the component-levels theory here should involve a procedure that maintained as far as possible the same denotative meaning of a word across its repetitions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encoding variability, levels of processing, and the effects of spacing of repetitions upon judgments of frequency

Rose

1980

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were carried out to compare the component-levels theory and the levelsof-processing hypothesis as explanations of the effect the spacing between repetitions of an item has upon the retention of that item. Retention was measured by judgments of frequency, frequency discrimination, and derived recognition scores. Variable encoding contexts facilitated recognition relative to repeated encoding contexts, while the latter biased subjects toward giving high judgments of frequency. The results in general were consonant with predictions derived from a levels-of-processing explanation of the spacing effect rather than the componentlevels theory. A modification of the latter theory to incorporate the former was suggested as a view of the memorial representation of repeated stimuli. >0-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encoding variability, levels of processing, and the effects of spacing of repetitions upon judgments of frequency

Rose

1980

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, nearly all studies purporting to test the varied encoding hypothesis have employed a procedure which involves the repetition of homographs (e.g., Gartman & Johnson, 1972;Johnston, Coots, & Flickinger, 1972;Madigan, 1969;Nelson, 1971). Context is manipulated so that the meaning of the homograph either remains the same or is changed.…”

Section: The Varied Encoding Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The within-list distributed practice effect: Tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses

Maskarinec

Thompson

1976

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present studies provided separate tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses of the MP-DP effect. The investigation of varied encoding used an incidental learning procedure in which the nature ofthe orienting task was manipulated such that the subject attended to diHerent attributes of words (varied encoding) or only one attribute (same encoding). While the prediction that the reeall ofMP-DP items should becomparable under comparable levels of encoding was not supported, diHerenees were obtained in recall of items under same and variable orienting task conditions. An MP-DP effect was obtained under the incidental learning procedure. Tests of varied context involved the presentation of target items in list contexts which were the same or different from list contexts on previous occurrences of the item. The prediction that recall of items surrounded by different context should exceed that of items surrounded by the same context was not supported.

show abstract

“…According to the encoding-variability (EV) hypothesis , applying a variety of encoding strategies should be more beneficial than repeating a single encoding strategy, either because it increases the number of cues or routes that can be used to retrieve items at test (e.g., Estes, 1950), and/or because it increases the number of memory traces or the richness of a given trace (e.g., Glenberg, 1979). Although several studies have reported EV benefits relative to repeating an encoding task (e.g., D’Agostino & DeRemer, 1971; Green & Stillwell, 1995; Hintzman & Stern, 1978; Hunt & Einstein, 1981; Maskarinec & Thompson, 1976; Postman & Knecht, 1983), others have shown no effect of EV (e.g., Bird, Nicholson, & Ringer, 1978; Dempster, 1987; Elmes & Bjork, 1975; Galbraith, 1975; Johnston, Coots, & Flickinger, 1972; Williams & Underwood, 1970), or even EV costs (e.g., Bobrow, 1970; Bower, Lesgold, & Tieman, 1969; Roediger, Sanches, & Agarwal, 2011; Young & Bellezza, 1982). The cause of these discrepant findings has never been satisfactorily determined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks

Huff

Bodner

2014

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether encoding variability facilitates memory is shown to depend on whether item-specific and relational processing are both performed across study blocks, and whether study items are weakly versus strongly related. Variable-processing groups studied a word list once using an item-specific task and once using a relational task. Variable-task groups’ two different study tasks recruited the same type of processing each block. Repeated-task groups performed the same study task each block. Recall and recognition were greatest in the variable-processing group, but only with weakly related lists. A variable-processing benefit was also found when task-based processing and list-type processing were complementary (e.g., item-specific processing of a related list) rather than redundant (e.g., relational processing of a related list). That performing both item-specific and relational processing across trials, or within a trial, yields encoding-variability benefits may help reconcile decades of contradictory findings in this area.

show abstract

Controlled semantic encoding and the effect of repetition lag on free recall

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

Encoding variability, levels of processing, and the effects of spacing of repetitions upon judgments of frequency

Encoding variability, levels of processing, and the effects of spacing of repetitions upon judgments of frequency

The within-list distributed practice effect: Tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses

All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About