The ICE model account (e.g., Murnane & Phelps, 1993; Murnane, Phelps, & Malmberg, 1999) of environmental context (EC)-dependent recognition memory is described, and new predictions concerning the effect of multiple presentation ECs are derived. Experiment 1 tested the ICE model predictions in relation to predictions derived from the cue-overload hypothesis (e.g., Watkins, 1979). In addition, the sensitivity of recognition reaction time (RT) as a measure of EC-dependent memory effects was examined. Minimal support was obtained for the ICE model, but greater support was provided for the cue-overload hypothesis. In Experiment 2, further manipulations were employed to test ICE model predictions and the cue-overload hypothesis, with relevance to the mental reinstatement and outshining hypotheses. Again support for the cue-overload hypothesis was obtained, and an EC reinstatement effect with RTs was detected. The ICE model is considered in respect of these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BjorkR. A.Richard son-KlavehnA. (1989). On the puzzling relationship between environmental context and human memory. In IzawaC.Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flowerree Symposium on Cognition.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2.
BowerG. H.(1972). Mental imagery and associative learning. In GreggL. W. (Ed.), Cognition in learning and memory. New York: Wiley.
3.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4.
CraikF. I. M. (1977). “A level of analysis” view of memory. In PlinerP.KramesL. & AllawayM.T. (Eds.), Communication and affect: Vol 2. Language and thought.New York: Academic Press.
5.
DaltonP. (1993). The role of stimulus familiarity in context-dependent recognition. Memory & Cognition21223–234.
6.
DaviesG. M. & ThompsonD. M. (1988). Memory in context: Context in memory. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
7.
DonaldsonW. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology121275–277.
8.
DougalS. & RotelloC. M. (1999). Context effects in recognition memory. American Journal of Psychology112277–295.
9.
DunlapW. P.CortinaJ. M.VaslowJ. B. & BurkeM. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods1170–177.
10.
EarhardM. (1967). Cued recall and free recall as a function of the number of items per cue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour6257–263.
11.
EichJ. E. (1980). The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval. Memory & Cognition8157–173.
12.
EichJ. M. (1985). Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration and CHARM. Psychological Review921–38.
13.
GeiselmanR. E. & BjorkR. A. (1980). Primary versus secondary rehearsal in imagined voices: Differential effects on recognition. Cognitive Psychology12188–205.
14.
GillundG. & ShiffrinR. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review911–67.
15.
GlenbergA. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition795–112.
16.
HautusM.J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d’. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers2746–51.
17.
HintzmanD. L. (1988). Judgements of frequency and recognition in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review95528–551.
18.
HumphreysM. S.BainJ. D. & PikeR. (1989). Different ways to cue a coherent memory system: A theory for episodic, semantic and procedural tasks. Psychological Review96208–233.
19.
LightL. & Carter-SobellL. (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour91–11.
20.
LockhartR. S. & CraikF. I. M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology4487–112.
21.
MackenW. J. (2002). Environmental context and recognition: The role of recollection and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28153–161.
22.
MurdockB. B. (1993). TODAM2: A model for the storage and retrieval of item, associative and serial-order information. Psychological Review100183–203.
23.
MurnaneK. & PhelpsM. P. (1993). A global activation approach to the effect of changes in environmental context on recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19882–894.
24.
MurnaneK. & PhelpsM. P. (1994). When does a different environmental context make a difference in recognition? A global activation model. Memory & Cognition22584–590.
25.
MurnaneK. & PhelpsM. P. (1995). Effects of changes in relative cue strength on context-dependent recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21158–172.
26.
MurnaneK.PhelpsM. P. & MalmbergK. (1999). Context-dependent recognition memory: The ICE model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General128403–415.
27.
NixonS. J. & KanakN. J. (1985). A theoretical account of the effects of EC upon cognitive processes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society23139–142.
28.
RutherfordA. (2000). The ability of familiarity, disruption and the relative strength of non-EC memory cues to explain unreliable environmental context-dependent memory effects in free-recall. Memory & Cognition281419–1428.
29.
SmithS. M. (1979). Remembering in and out of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory5460–471.
30.
SmithS. M. (1985). Effects of number of study environments and learning instructions on free-recall clustering and accuracy. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society23440–442.
31.
SmithS. M. (1986). Environmental context-dependent recognition memory using a short-term memory task for input. Memory & Cognition14347–354.
32.
SmithS. M.(1988). Environmental context-dependent memory. In DaviesG. M. & ThompsonM.D.. (Eds.), Memory in context: Context in memory (pp. 13–34). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
33.
SmithS. M.(1994). Theoretical principles of context-dependent memory. In MorrisP. E.&M. Gruneberg (Eds.), Theoretical aspects of memory (2nd ed., pp. 168–195). London: Routledge.
34.
SmithS. M. & VelaE. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review8203–220.
35.
SnodgrassJ. G. & CorwinJ. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General11734–50.
36.
SnodgrassJ. G. & VanderwartM. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory6174–215.
37.
TulvingE. & ThompsonD. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review80352–319.
38.
WatkinsM. J.(1979). Engrams as cuegrams and forgetting as a cue-overload effect: A cueing approach to the structure of memory. In PuffC. R. (Ed.), Memory organization and structure (pp. 347–372). New York: Academic Press.
39.
WatkinsO. C. & WatkinsM. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory104442–453.
40.
WickensD. D.(1987). The dual meanings of context: Implications for research, theory and applications. In GorfeinD. S. & HoffmanR.R.. (Eds.), Memory & Learning: The Ebbinghaus Centennial Conference (pp. 135–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
