While effects of contextual change or constancy on memory are widely found when tested by free and cued recall, there is greater inconsistency in context effects on recognition. This study employed a paradigm maximizing target–context interactivity and specificity to reveal three levels of context effects on successful retrieval, as well as context effects on the generation of false alarms, thereby revealing separable contributions of target–context binding, additive familiarity, and configural constancy. The separability of these factors enables the use of memory context effects as tools for investigating associative memory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. (1982). Domains of recollection.Psychological Review89, 708–729.
2.
DaltonP. (1993). The role of stimulus familiarity in context-dependent recognition.Memory & Cognition21, 223–234.
3.
FernandezA.GlenbergA. M. (1985). Changing environmental context does not reliably affect memory.Memory & Cognition13, 333–345.
4.
GoddenD. R.BaddeleyA. D. (1980). When does context influence recognition memory? British Journal of Psychology.71, 99–104.
5.
HershlerO.HochsteinS. (2005). At first sight: A high-level pop out effect for faces.Vision Research45, 1707–1724.
6.
HollingworthA. (2006). Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition32, 58–69.
7.
JohnsonM. K.HashtroudiS.LindsayD. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Review114, 3–28.
8.
MackenW. J. (2002). Environmental context and recognition: The role of recollection and familiarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 153–161.
9.
MayesA. R.HoldstockJ. S.IsaacC. L.MontaldiD.GrigorJ.GummerA. (2004). Associative recognition in a patient with selective hippocampal lesions and relatively normal item recognition.Hippocampus14, 763–784.
10.
MeltzerJ. A.ConstableR. T. (2005). Activation of human hippocampal formation reflects success in both encoding and cued recall of paired associates.Neuroimage15, 384–397.
11.
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 Cognition19, 882–894.
12.
MurnaneK.PhelpsM. P. (1994). When does a different environmental context make a difference in recognition? A global activation model.Memory & Cognition22, 584–590.
13.
MurnaneK.PhelpsM.MalmbergK. (1999). Context-dependent recognition memory: The ICE theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General128, 403–415.
14.
ParkerA.GellatlyA. (1997). Moveable cues: A practical method for reducing context-dependent forgetting.Applied Cognitive Psychology11, 163–173.
15.
RussoR.WardG.GeurtsH.ScheresA. (1999). When unfamiliarity matters: Changing environmental context between study and test affects recognition memory for unfamiliar stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 488–499.
16.
SmithS. M.GlenbergA.BjorkR. A. (1978). Environmental context and human memory.Memory & Cognition6, 342–353.
17.
SmithS. M.VelaE. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review8, 203–220.
18.
StarkC. E. L.SquireL. R. (2003). Hippocampal damage equally impairs memory for single items and memory for conjunctions.Hippocampus13, 281–292.
19.
VakilE.OdedY. (2003). Comparison between three memory tests: Cued recall, priming and saving closed-head injured patients and controls.Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology25, 274–282.
20.
WinogradE.Rivers-BulkeleyN. T. (1977). Effects of changing context on remembering faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Learning and Memory3, 397–405.
