The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Nairne, J. S. Memory, 10(5-6):389-395, 2002. PMID: 12396651doi 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
{"_id":"c23umTD7nvsBiinKT","bibbaseid":"nairne-themythoftheencodingretrievalmatch-2002","author_short":["Nairne, J. S."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["James","S."],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Nairne"],"suffixes":[]}],"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","bibtex":"@Article{Nairne2002a,\n author = {James S. Nairne},\n journal = {Memory},\n title = {The myth of the encoding-retrieval match},\n year = {2002},\n note = {PMID: 12396651},\n number = {5-6},\n pages = {389-395},\n volume = {10},\n abstract = {Modern memory researchers rely heavily on the encoding-retrieval\n\tmatch, defined as the similarity between coded retrieval cues and\n\tpreviously encoded engrams, to explain variability in retention.\n\tThe encoding-retrieval match is assumed to be causally and monotonically\n\trelated to retention, although other factors (such as cue overload)\n\tpresumably operate in some circumstances. I argue here that the link\n\tbetween the encoding-retrieval match and retention, although generally\n\tpositive, is essentially correlational rather than causal---much like\n\tthe link between deep/elaborative processing and retention. Empirically,\n\tincreasing the functional match between a cue and a target trace\n\tcan improve, have no effect, or even decrease retention performance\n\tdepending on the circumstance. We cannot make unequivocal predictions\n\tabout retention by appealing to the encoding-retrieval match; instead,\n\twe should be focusing our attention on the extent to which retrieval\n\tcues provide diagnostic information about target occurrence.},\n doi = {10.1080/09658210244000216},\n eprint = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000216},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Nairne, J. S."],"key":"Nairne2002a","id":"Nairne2002a","bibbaseid":"nairne-themythoftheencodingretrievalmatch-2002","role":"author","urls":{},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["myth","encoding","retrieval","match","nairne"],"title":"The myth of the encoding-retrieval match","year":2002}