The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Nairne, J. S. Memory, 10(5-6):389-395, 2002. PMID: 12396651
doi  abstract   bibtex   
Modern memory researchers rely heavily on the encoding-retrieval match, defined as the similarity between coded retrieval cues and previously encoded engrams, to explain variability in retention. The encoding-retrieval match is assumed to be causally and monotonically related to retention, although other factors (such as cue overload) presumably operate in some circumstances. I argue here that the link between the encoding-retrieval match and retention, although generally positive, is essentially correlational rather than causal—much like the link between deep/elaborative processing and retention. Empirically, increasing the functional match between a cue and a target trace can improve, have no effect, or even decrease retention performance depending on the circumstance. We cannot make unequivocal predictions about retention by appealing to the encoding-retrieval match; instead, we should be focusing our attention on the extent to which retrieval cues provide diagnostic information about target occurrence.
@Article{Nairne2002a,
  author   = {James S. Nairne},
  journal  = {Memory},
  title    = {The myth of the encoding-retrieval match},
  year     = {2002},
  note     = {PMID: 12396651},
  number   = {5-6},
  pages    = {389-395},
  volume   = {10},
  abstract = {Modern memory researchers rely heavily on the encoding-retrieval
	match, defined as the similarity between coded retrieval cues and
	previously encoded engrams, to explain variability in retention.
	The encoding-retrieval match is assumed to be causally and monotonically
	related to retention, although other factors (such as cue overload)
	presumably operate in some circumstances. I argue here that the link
	between the encoding-retrieval match and retention, although generally
	positive, is essentially correlational rather than causal---much like
	the link between deep/elaborative processing and retention. Empirically,
	increasing the functional match between a cue and a target trace
	can improve, have no effect, or even decrease retention performance
	depending on the circumstance. We cannot make unequivocal predictions
	about retention by appealing to the encoding-retrieval match; instead,
	we should be focusing our attention on the extent to which retrieval
	cues provide diagnostic information about target occurrence.},
  doi      = {10.1080/09658210244000216},
  eprint   = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000216},
}

Downloads: 0