The role of attention for context–context binding of intrinsic and extrinsic features.

Abstract

There is converging evidence that the feeling of conscious recollection is usually accompanied by the bound retrieval of context features of the encoding episode (e.g., Meiser, Sattler, & Weiβer, 2008). Recently, however, important limiting conditions have been identified for the binding between context features in memory. For example, focusing on the semantics of the stimuli during encoding eliminates binding between perceptual context features (Meiser & Sattler, 2007). In the present research, we investigated the interplay of the focus of attention during encoding and stimulus characteristics in context-context binding. In particular, it has been suggested that context features differ in the degree to which they can be regarded as intrinsic or extrinsic to the items and that intrinsic features might be given more attentional processing during encoding than extrinsic features (e.g., Ecker, Zimmer, & Groh-Bordin, 2007a). In two experiments, we manipulated the "intrinsicality" of context features to investigate whether context-context binding might be limited to features that are in the focus of processing. Multinomial modeling analyses revealed that while context-context binding was eliminated for incidentally processed extrinsic context features (Experiment 1), it was preserved for intentionally processed extrinsic context features (Experiment 2).

Using Multidimensional Encoding and Retrieval Contexts to Enhance Our Understanding of Stochastic Dependence in Source Memory

“…But it does make one pause to consider how our traditional paradigms (e.g., Meiser & Br€ oder, 2002;Starns & Hicks, 2005) often downplay low-level perceptual encoding of objects and of their features that surely must occur in order to perceive an object as that particular object, as opposed to further binding and its residual effects that are caused by various encoding or retrieval processes operating on those representations. An exception here is the work by Boywitt and Meiser (2012b) showing that stochastic dependence was greater in multidimensional source memory for features intrinsic to item presentation as opposed to extrinsic (Experiment 1), but that even extrinsic features showed dependence when people were told to focus on both features during encoding (Experiment 2). Their work represents an attempt to manipulate context features that might be more or less inherently associated with item/object information.…”

“…However, extrinsic contexts were successfully integrated in a second experiment following an explicit instruction to associate the color and locations of the squares with the centrally presented words. Boywitt and Meiser (2012b) demonstrated further that the two source dimensions must be presented concurrently with item presentation at encoding in order for the stochastic dependence to occur. They compared conditions in which the two source dimensions were presented together, with word color and position evident in a single presentation, versus a condition in which color was evident in one presentation and then position manipulated in a separate presentation.…”

“…That evidence suggests that encoding processes help to create coherent memory traces integrated across item and context features, implying a representation depicted in Figure 1(A). On this note, further discussion of the Boywitt and Meiser (2012b) paper is relevant. Recall that they demonstrated stochastic dependence for two source dimensions only when these dimensions were simultaneously presented with the items during encoding.…”

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

“…Although we do not distinguish between the two types of source information in the current study, future research should examine the recovery of contextual information in the absence of item memory for intrinsic versus extrinsic source details, as they likely differ in their relative contribution of encoding and retrieval processes needed for information to be bound into or reactivated from memory (e.g., Boywitt & Meiser, 2012). For example, it has been suggested that whereas intrinsic source features are bound relatively automati cally to item information and promote familiarity-based retrieval processes, extrinsic source details require more effortful process ing to form an associative link between the item and source and promote recollective retrieval processes (Ecker et al, 2007b).…”

Executive Resources and Item-Context Binding: Exploring the Influence of Concurrent Inhibition, Updating, and Shifting Tasks on Context Memory

“…Many studies have shown that extrinsic and intrinsic context information are differently processed and represented in memory. For example, Mulligan ( 2011 ) and Nieznaski ( 2012 , 2014 ) have demonstrated that generating an item results in an increase in memory for extrinsic context but a decrease in memory for intrinsic context (see Boywitt & Meiser, 2012 ; Ecker, Maybery, & Zimmer, 2013 ; Ecker, Zimmer, & Groh-Bordin, 2007 ; Geiselman & Bjork, 1980 ; Godden & Baddeley, 1980 ; Troyer & Craik, 2000 ; for studies showing differential consequences of processing intrinsic vs. extrinsic context). The explanation why expectancy effects seem to be different for extrinsic versus intrinsic contexts needs future experimental investigation.…”