Using Self-Generated Cues to Facilitate Recall: A Narrative Review

Abstract

We draw upon the Associative Network model of memory, as well as the principles of encoding-retrieval specificity, and cue distinctiveness, to argue that self-generated cue mnemonics offer an intuitive means of facilitating reliable recall of personally experienced events. The use of a self-generated cue mnemonic allows for the spreading activation nature of memory, whilst also presenting an opportunity to capitalize upon cue distinctiveness. Here, we present the theoretical rationale behind the use of this technique, and highlight the distinction between a self-generated cue and a self-referent cue in autobiographical memory research. We contrast this mnemonic with a similar retrieval technique, Mental Reinstatement of Context, which is recognized as the most effective mnemonic component of the Cognitive Interview. Mental Reinstatement of Context is based upon the principle of encoding-retrieval specificity, whereby the overlap between encoded information and retrieval cue predicts the likelihood of accurate recall. However, it does not incorporate the potential additional benefit of self-generated retrieval cues.

“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow‐up open questions following an initial account

“…Given the promising results on using the self-generated cues in conjunction with the timeline technique in previous research (Kontogianni et al, 2018), a modified version of the timeline was used here to include use of the mnemonic. Self-generated cues are salient details of the witnessed event that are produced by the interviewees themselves and facilitate recall compared to interviewer-generated cues and no cues (Kontogianni et al, 2018;Wheeler & Gabbert, 2017). In keeping with the procedure of the previous experiment, the same follow-up open-ended questions were used, with the addition of specific pre-questioning instructions to encourage accurate reporting.…”

Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development

“…In failure-handling situations, recall and comprehension of relevant information (warnings, robotic commands, and possible solutions) could be made easier by exploring influential factors. Studies indicate that it is easier to recall information that is visual (Paivio and Csapo, 1973 ), concrete (Butter, 1970 ; Sheehan and Antrobus, 1972 ), repeated (Kintsch et al, 1975 ), specific (Mani and Johnson-Laird, 1982 ), personal (Van Lancker, 1991 ), novel (Kishiyama and Yonelinas, 2003 ), typical (Reeve and Aggleton, 1998 ), humorous (Schmidt, 1994 ; Summerfelt et al, 2010 ; Carlson, 2011 ) and self-generated (Wheeler and Gabbert, 2017 ). The likelihood a retrieval cue leads to recollection depends on the similarity between the features encoded initially and those provided by the retrieval cue, distinguishability from other cues, and association with the newly learned information (Wheeler and Gabbert, 2017 ).…”

“…Studies indicate that it is easier to recall information that is visual (Paivio and Csapo, 1973 ), concrete (Butter, 1970 ; Sheehan and Antrobus, 1972 ), repeated (Kintsch et al, 1975 ), specific (Mani and Johnson-Laird, 1982 ), personal (Van Lancker, 1991 ), novel (Kishiyama and Yonelinas, 2003 ), typical (Reeve and Aggleton, 1998 ), humorous (Schmidt, 1994 ; Summerfelt et al, 2010 ; Carlson, 2011 ) and self-generated (Wheeler and Gabbert, 2017 ). The likelihood a retrieval cue leads to recollection depends on the similarity between the features encoded initially and those provided by the retrieval cue, distinguishability from other cues, and association with the newly learned information (Wheeler and Gabbert, 2017 ). Storing information to memory seems to depend on deep processing of the meaning of new material, determined by the degree to which one understands the information to form meaningful associations and elaborations with existing knowledge (Bower, 2000 ), as well as on arousal (Butter, 1970 ) and individual differences (Verhaeghen and Marcoen, 1996 ) [e.g., age (Anderson et al, 2000 ), mood (Bower et al, 1978 )].…”

Source Handler perceptions of the interviewing processes employed with informants

“…Cognitive mnemonics such as the timeline technique (Hope et al, 2013) and self-generated cues (Wheeler & Gabbert, 2017) may also assist in circumstances where an informant is required to recall specific details from a series of events (e.g. attending numerous secret meetings).…”

“…In turn, self-generated cues would encourage the informant to generate salient details about the to-be-remembered event to facilitate further retrieval (Wheeler & Gabbert, 2017). This is a non-leading interview technique as it would have no input from the Source Handler.…”