Encoding and retrieval processes involved in the access of source information in the absence of item memory.

Abstract

The current study sought to examine the relative contributions of encoding and retrieval processes in accessing contextual information in the absence of item memory using an extralist cuing procedure in which the retrieval cues used to query memory for contextual information were related to the target item but never actually studied. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants studied 1 category member (e.g., onion) from a variety of different categories and at test were presented with an unstudied category label (e.g., vegetable) to probe memory for item and source information. In Experiments 3 and 4, 1 member of unidirectional (e.g., credit or card) or bidirectional (e.g., salt or pepper) associates was studied, whereas the other unstudied member served as a test probe. When recall failed, source information was accessible only when items were processed deeply during encoding (Experiments 1 and 2) and when there was strong forward associative strength between the retrieval cue and target (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings suggest that a retrieval probe diagnostic of semantically related item information reinstantiates information bound in memory during encoding that results in reactivation of associated contextual information, contingent upon sufficient learning of the item itself and the association between the item and its context information.

Source monitoring and associative structure

“…The result that source identification of unrecalled targets was no different for related versus unrelated pairs is contrary to Ball et al (2014Ball et al ( , p. 1282 who suggested that in the related pairs the cue and target would share features and the cue word would thus be better able to access context generated by the target word which, in turn, would be associated with location information regarding the target word. This can be seen in Fig.…”

“…Two other effects from previous research literature were replicated. Source identification of unrecalled target words was above chance level, as reported in previous research literature (Ball et al, 2014;Cook et al, 2006). Also, source identification performance for cues and targets was positively correlated as indicated by the values of the phi correlations.…”

“…2 is interpreted. However, Ball et al (2014) suggest that when recall does not occur source information should be better identified for the related items because the word used as a cue more easily accesses both sets of source information compared to when the items were unrelated.…”

“…For example, using a paired-associates paradigm, Cook et al (2006) found that under certain conditions the sex of the voice presenting an item could later be identified, even when the test item itself was not recalled. Ball, DeWitt, Knight, and Hicks (2014), using extra-list cues semantically related to unrecognized test items, found that the rating task previously used to evaluate an item could be identified at a level greater than expected by guessing. Other authors have also demonstrated this phenomenon of source identification without recognition (e. g., Kurilla & Westerman, 2010).…”

No source memory for unrecognized items when implicit feedback is avoided

“…This finding, of course, does not demonstrate source memory for unrecalled targets, as remembering the source of the cue would be sufficient for a correct source judgment. Furthermore, even without cue-context binding, a semantically related but non-studied cue was shown to elicit correct source discrimination after failed target recall, as long as the cue could reinstate the encoding context (Ball, DeWitt, Knight, & Hicks 2014). A similar argument applies to a study by Kurilla and Westerman (2010) who used word-fragment completion followed by an old/new judgment and a source judgment after an OLD response.…”