Context reinstatement and memory for intrinsic versus extrinsic context: the role of item generation at encoding or retrieval.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2014, 55, 409–419

DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12153

Cognition and Neurosciences Context reinstatement and memory for intrinsic versus extrinsic context: The role of item generation at encoding or retrieval MAREK NIEZNANSKI Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, Warsaw, Poland

Nieznanski, M. (2014). Context reinstatement and memory for intrinsic versus extrinsic context: The role of item generation at encoding or retrieval. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 55, 409–419. According to many theoretical accounts, reinstating study context at the time of test creates optimal circumstances for item retrieval. The role of context reinstatement was tested in reference to context memory in several experiments. On the encoding phase, participants were presented with words printed in two different font colors (intrinsic context) or two different sides of the computer screen (extrinsic context). At test, the context was reinstated or changed and participants were asked to recognize words and recollect their study context. Moreover, a read-generate manipulation was introduced at encoding and retrieval, which was intended to influence the relative salience of item and context information. The results showed that context reinstatement had no effect on memory for extrinsic context but affected memory for intrinsic context when the item was generated at encoding and read at test. These results supported the hypothesis that context information is reconstructed at retrieval only when context was poorly encoded at study. Key words: Context (source) memory, intrinsic and extrinsic context, generation effect, context reinstatement effect. Marek Nieznanski, al. KEN 26/181, 02-797 Warsaw, Poland. E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION In the literature on context effects in memory, it is generally believed that items are remembered best when the presentation context is reinstated at test. In a number of studies using free or cued recall tests this view was largely supported, but studies that have tested recognition memory have produced far more elusive results (for review see Smith, 1988; Smith & Vela, 2001). Investigators have tried to explain the inconsistent recognition results by distinguishing between various types of context. Dalton (1993), for example, employed a distinction between local context, which comprises elements that are encoded uniquely to one or a few target items, and global context associated with many target items. (These two context categories are also called: verbal and environmental; Franco-Watkins & Daugherty, 2006.) With this distinction, the influence of matching context information at study and test has been confirmed for local (verbal) context (e.g., Humphreys, 1976; Light & Carter-Sobell, 1970; Tulving & Thomson, 1973) but the results for global (environmental) context have remained elusive (e.g., Fernandez & Glenberg, 1985). Another important distinction is between intrinsic (intra-item) and extrinsic (extra-item) context (e.g., Geiselman & Bjork, 1980; Godden & Baddeley, 1980). The intrinsic context refers to the inevitably processed physical attributes of an item (e.g., font color, voice of presentation), while extrinsic context refers to irrelevant aspects of the study environment which are external to a target item (e.g., background color, location). Godden and Baddeley (1980) suggested that in experiments on the context reinstatement effect, intrinsic context influences both recall and recognition, while extrinsic context has an effect on recall but not on recognition. Recently, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic context has been fruitfully used in several studies on context memory and feature binding in working memory (e.g., Boywitt & Meiser, 2012; © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Ecker, Maybery & Zimmer, 2013; Mulligan, 2011; Niezna nski, 2012). Some important theoretical explanations of the inconsistencies in recall and recognition studies’ results have been put forward by Smith (1988, 1994). An encoding-based explanation called overshadowing hypothesis assumes that – when item information is very salient – context information may be not effectively encoded in memory, which is why context reinstatement is not helpful at test. A complementary hypothesis concerns the retrieval phase of the memory experiment. According to the outshining hypothesis, an item presented for recognition during retrieval may be such a strong cue that it masks (‘outshines’) any benefit that the contextual cue may provide.

Context effects on context memory The present study is principally concerned with the influence of context reinstatement on context memory rather than item memory. In a most recent study on this topic Starns and Hicks (2013) have claimed that existing studies provide very limited evidence that reinstating context details has an impact on context memory. In literature, null results alternate with positive effects. For example, in one of the earliest studies in this area, Craik and Kirsner (1974, Exp. 3) found that memory of voice information was not helped by the presentation being in the same voice. More recently, a thorough study was conducted by Dodson and Shimamura (2000). In their experiments, the context (source) was also defined by voice, that is, participants were presented words that were spoken by a female or male voice. At test, words were presented with the same study voice, a mismatched study voice or a neutral cue. Generally, the results showed that context identification was enhanced in match and disrupted in mismatch conditions. What is important is that the multinomial model analyses conducted by Dodson and Shimamura (Exp. 2)

410 M. Nieznanski have shown that the context match-mismatch effect could not be explained simply by response biases toward the study context but the effect is in fact a context memory effect. It seems that reinstating the study context at test activates appropriate memories associated with the item. By contrast, in the mismatch condition, the activation of inappropriate associations causes interference and individuals fail to recollect diagnostic context information and have to guess the context. Dodson (2007) proposed a different account of the cause of context misattributions in the mismatch condition. It is possible that participants experience an ‘illusory recollection’ instead of interference. Therefore, they do not guess the source of not discriminated items but construct an experience of recollection on the basis of retrieval cues. Taking into account mentioned above positive observations concerning context effects on voice identification, one would expect a positive effect of context reinstatement on memory also for other intrinsic features as font color. However, several other studies reported null effects of intrinsic context reinstatement, showing this effect to be very fragile (cf. Starns & Hicks, 2005; 2013). A primary goal of the present study is to examine whether this effect may be modulated by making context information more or less salient at test or study. This issue will be studied both for intrinsic and extrinsic context. The topic of context reinstatement effect on extrinsic context (e.g., location) has been investigated in very few studies, mostly reporting null effects (Starns & Hicks, 2005; Vogt & Br€ oder, 2007). An indirect evidence of an ineffectiveness of extrinsic context cues can be also found in an experiment conducted in the scope of dual-process theory of recognition memory by Perfect, Mayes, Downes, and Van Eijk (1996, Exp. 5). They found that memory for location of an item on a page did not differentiate responses based on recollection from responses based on familiarity and suggested that recollection where an item was presented was less central to recollective experience than several other contextual details. A lack of context reinstatement effect on extrinsic context (location) memory may be predicted from hypotheses proposed by Smith and Vela (2001) for item memory. In the case of intrinsic contexts as voice or font color, a semantic association may be created by a participant between a word and its context (e.g., seeing a word advocate in a green font, a participant may think about an advocate dealing with environment-related matters). However, in the case of location it is difficult to create association between a word and its context. It is likely that participants group items according to their location and try to form inter-item associations. These associations are then used as a basis for context recognition instead of specific bindings between a particular item and its location. Therefore, the location information provided at test may be outshined by more useful inter-item information resulting in a null effect of context reinstatement. The present study postulates that contextual cues provided at test are used for the reconstruction of an item-context binding only when memory for context is relatively poor. This prediction will be called the required-reconstruction hypothesis. In Experiments 1A and 2A generation task performed at study will limit attentional resources, and therefore intrinsic contextual details will be poorly integrated with item information. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol 55 (2014)

The reconstruction process will be activated at retrieval to compensate for the poor encoding in the generate study condition. Following Dodson’s (2007) illusory recollection account, it may be assumed that false context recollection occurs when reconstruction is based on a switched retrieval cue. As in Dodson’s account the required-reconstruction hypothesis assumes that illusory recollection is a memory process not a guessing one.1 However, when context is encoded in the full attention condition (read condition), context and item information are relatively well integrated and contextual cues are mostly redundant. Null effects of context reinstatement due to cue redundancy are also postulated by Starns and Hicks (2013) in their internalcuing account. According to this account the reason why cues are redundant is their internal reinstatement at retrieval. However, in reference to the present research, any differences in the ability to internally reinstate context for read vs. generate study condition could not be predicted, and therefore null effects should be observed, regardless of the kind of encoding processing. In the case of retrieval conditions, it is possible that internal context reinstatement would be more difficult in the generate than read condition. According to the internal-cuing account a positive effect of providing contextual cues is more plausible for the generate than read test condition. In contrast, the requiredreconstruction hypothesis postulates that salient retrieval cues provided at test in the read condition influence context memory more than weak cues available in the generate test condition. In Experiments 1B and 2B, the effects of context reinstatement are studied for extrinsic context. On the one hand, positive effects may be expected when context is poorly encoded at study but salient at test. On the other hand, as it is suggested by research on item memory, an extrinsic context may be not so effective as a cue as an intrinsic context is. It is possible that under this condition reconstructive processes based on contextual cues are not required to infer the context.

EXPERIMENTS 1A AND 1B In the experiments presented here intrinsic (Exp. 1A) and extrinsic (Exp. 1B) contexts were used and a manipulation of processing type at encoding and retrieval was introduced, that is, participants were asked to (a) generate words at encoding and retrieval, (b) generate words at encoding and read at retrieval or (c) read words at both phases. Previous research have demonstrated a negative influence of carrying out a generation task on memory for intrinsic context, however, in the case of extrinsic context the effects were positive or absent. Generation effects on context memory have been explained by two complementary accounts (for comparison see Niezna nski, 2012). The item-source tradeoff hypothesis asserts that item and context memory compete for encoding resources, therefore, item memory benefits from generation at the cost of reduction in context memory (Jurica & Shimamura, 1999; Niezna nski, 2011). However, as it has been recently shown (Niezna nski, 2013), the reduction in context encoding due to resource limitation does not have to be accompanied by item memory enhancement. On the other hand, the processing hypothesis assumes that reading but not generating from word fragments promotes analysis of a word’s visual attributes

Context effects on context memory 411


including its font color. This hypothesis predicts negative effects of conceptual generation tasks on intrinsic context memory but no effect when perceptual generation tasks are used. In the case of extrinsic (local) context, a perceptual generation task may even result in a positive effect (Mulligan, 2004, 2011; Mulligan, Lozito & Rosner, 2006). In Experiment 1A, it was predicted that requesting participants to generate items at encoding should influence context reinstatement effects on intrinsic context memory. In comparison with reading, generating a word at retrieval should reduce the availability of contextual cues because a generation task does not promote visual processing of perceptual features and/or disrupts processing of these features due to the cognitive resource limitations. Therefore, when words are read at retrieval, contextual cues are more available than when words are generated so it is more probable that context memory will be enhanced due to context reinstatement for items read at test. According to the requested-reconstruction hypothesis, generating a word at study should decrease context encoding yet probably increase the context reinstatement effect because contextual cues presented at retrieval would have a greater utility when the context was poorly encoded than when it was encoded effectively. In other words, in the case of poorly encoded intrinsic context information, context memory may be reconstructed on the basis of salient retrieval contextual cues. In sum, context effects are most probable in the condition when an item is read at retrieval but generated at encoding.

target word (e.g., lawyer - advoc■■e). Missing letters were replaced by full squares ■ which were the same color as the letters (see Mulligan, 2004, Exp. 5). In the read condition, wordpairs were presented in an intact form (e.g., lawyer - advocate). Participants were instructed to read the words aloud and were asked to remember the target words as well as their colors. No formal distracter task was used between study and the test phase of the experiment. During the test, words were presented in one of the two font colors: green or red. Half of the target words were presented in the same color as during the study and the other half in the switched color. The experimental conditions (same context vs. switched context) were, therefore, manipulated within-subjects. Participants were first asked to recognize whether the item was old or new and then requested to recall the font color for items recognized as old. The presentation was self-paced at test. Participants’ responses were recorded by the experimenter. Methodological approach. The data were analysed using the multinomial processing approach, a method allowing for separate measurement of different cognitive processes and guessing biases in a context (source) memory task (e.g., Batchelder & Riefer, 1990; Bayen, Murnane & Erdfelder, 1996; Br€ oder & Meiser, 2007). More details about this method are provided in the Appendix 1.

RESULTS EXPERIMENT 1A: METHOD Participants Eighty-four undergraduate students participated individually in the experiment for extra course credits, 28 in each of the three study-test conditions.

Materials and procedure A set of 104 synonymous pairs of nouns were chosen from a thesaurus. The mean length of the target words was 6.9 letters and they had no obvious association with colors used in the experiment. These word-pairs were randomly divided to create two sets of word-pairs used during separate experimental sessions. In order to gather more data from the limited number of participants, two consecutive experimental sessions were prepared for each participant. In each session, eight word-pairs served as buffers at the beginning and the end of the list, 32 word-pairs were the main stimuli and 12 words were used as distracters during the recognition memory test. During the study phase at both sessions, half of the words were presented in a red font and the other half in a green font, font colors were randomly mixed throughout presentation. Slides with the word pairs (the cue word above the target word) were presented on a computer screen for 4 s each. There were three study-test between-subjects experimental conditions: the read-read condition, the generate-read condition, and the generate-generate condition. For generated items, two adjacent letters were missing on the left to the last letter of the © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

At study, the participants failed to generate 2.96% and 2.11% of words in generate-read and generate-generate conditions, respectively. Only data for correctly generated words were analysed. If a participant was unable to correctly generate a word at test (in the generate-generate condition), the correct answer was provided by the experimenter. In the multinomial model analyses, the same restrictions on parameter values were imposed in all experimental conditions. First, it was assumed that the distracter detection parameters were equal to the old item in the switched context detection parameters, D New item = D Old item / Switched context. Second, it was assumed that the guessing bias toward an answer that was congruent with the font color presented at test was the same for undetected items and detected-but-not-discriminated2 items, a = g Test-congruent. After the said restrictions being imposed, the number of parameters reached 18, which equals the number of degrees of freedom in the data. The parameter estimates have been shown in Table 1A, and the response frequencies in Appendix 2. Item memory. The positive generation effects in recognition memory were confirmed both for same-context and switchedcontext conditions. Words that were read both at encoding and the test were more poorly detected than words in the generateread condition (G2(1) = 11.27, p < 0.001, and G2(1) = 29.71, p < 0.001 for the same-context and switched-context conditions, respectively). Item memory was also lower for words in the read-read condition than for words in the generate-generate condition (G2(1) = 8.62, p < 0.004, and G2(1) = 33.25, p < 0.001 for the same-context and switched-context conditions,

412 M. Nieznanski


Table 1A. Parameter estimates and standard errors from multinomial model analyses in Experiment 1A with the conceptual generation task and font color as context Experimental conditions

Parameter

Read-read

Generateread

Generategenerate

D Same context D Switched context = D d Same context d Switched context a = g Test–congruent b

0.58 0.53 0.41 0.44 0.58 0.40

0.71 0.68 0.33 0.00 0.43 0.36

0.71 0.69 0.38 0.13 0.48 0.52

New item

[0.03] [0.02] [0.11] [0.08] [0.04] [0.02]

[0.02] [0.02] [0.08] [0.15] [0.05] [0.03]

[0.03] [0.02] [0.09] [0.12] [0.05] [0.03]

respectively). However, item memory did not differ between same-context and switched-context conditions for the read-read condition, G2(1) = 2.08, ns, generate-read condition, G2(1) = 0.72, ns, and generate-generate condition, G2(1) = 0.23, ns. Context memory. Negative generation effects for context memory were found in the switched-context condition. The context memory parameter (d) was significantly higher for the read-read condition than for the generate-read condition, G2(1) = 11.24, p < 0.001, and for the generate-generate condition, G2(1) = 4.97, p < 0.03. In the same-context condition, differences between the read-read condition versus generate-read and generate-generate conditions were not significant (G2(1) = 0.49, ns, and G2(1) = 0.06, ns, respectively). However, the crucial results for this experiment concern the context reinstatement effects. A significant effect was found in the generate-read condition, that is, context memory was better for the same-context condition than for the switched-context condition, G2(1) = 4.81, p < 0.03. In the generate-generate condition context memory was slightly better in the same-context condition than in the switched-context condition but this difference was not significant, G2(1) = 1.57, ns. In the read-read condition there were no differences in context memory between same-context and switched-context conditions, G2(1) = 0.03, ns. Guessing bias. Parameter a = g, representing the tendency of guessing that an undifferentiated or undetected item was presented at study in the same color as it was presented at test, tended to be higher from the neutral value of 0.50 in the readread condition, G2(1) = 3.49, p = 0.06, and was significantly lower than 0.50 in the generate-read condition, G2(1) = 4.13, p < 0.05, while in the generate-generate condition it did not differ from .50, G2(1) = 0.15, ns.

On the other hand, no effect of context reinstatement is also very plausible because inter-item associative information can ‘outshine’ contextual cues available at test, that is, context may be recalled on the basis of non-contextual cues.

Method Participants. A total of 72 undergraduate students participated in this experiment, 24 in each of the three study-test conditions. Participants were from the same pool as those in Experiment 1A. Materials and Procedure. The stimuli and procedures were mostly the same as in the previous experiment. However, the type of context and generation task were changed. This time instead of word pairs single words were presented (i.e., all target words from Exp. 1A), and participants in the generate condition were asked to transpose the two beginning letters of each word (e.g., davocate). The context was defined as a location of the word on the computer screen. At study, half of the words were presented on the left of the screen and half of them were presented on the right. At test, half of the words were presented on the same side of the screen, and the other half on the switched side.

RESULTS At study, the participants failed to generate only 0.71% and 0.38% of words in generate-read and generate-generate conditions, respectively. The same multinomial model with the same constraints was used as in Experiment 1A. The parameter estimates have been shown in Table 1B and the response frequencies in Appendix 3. Item memory. No effect of context reinstatement was observed in any condition used in this experiment (read-read, generateread, nor generate-generate). No generation effect was observed for items tested in the same context. However, for items tested in the switched context, a significant positive generation effect between read-read and generate-generate conditions was observed, G2(1) = 4.21, p < 0.04, but a negative effect occurred when the read-read condition was compared with the generateread condition, G2(1) = 4.80, p < 0.03. Item memory in the switched-context condition was significantly better in the

Table 1B. Parameter estimates and standard errors from multinomial model analyses in Experiment 1B with the perceptual generation task and location as context Experimental conditions

EXPERIMENT 1B In Experiment 1B, where extrinsic context and perceptual generation task were used, the read-generate manipulation had quite different consequences for context processing. On the one hand, positive effects of context reinstatement might be expected for items read at encoding rather than generated because letter transposition enhances location memory, therefore, contextual cues are required to reconstruct relatively poorly-encoded context of read items but not well-encoded context of generated items. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Parameter D Same context D Switched context = D d Same context d Switched context a = g Test–congruent b

New item

Read-read

Generateread

Generategenerate

0.75 0.73 0.63 0.45 0.30 0.30

0.71 0.67 0.39 0.55 0.48 0.38

0.75 0.78 0.34 0.75 0.63 0.47

[0.02] [0.02] [0.05] [0.16] [0.07] [0.03]

[0.03] [0.02] [0.10] [0.09] [0.06] [0.03]

[0.03] [0.02] [0.15] [0.05] [0.06] [0.04]



generate-generate condition than in the generate-read condition, G2(1) = 17.43, p < 0.001. Context memory. In the same-context condition, negative generation effects were observed. The context memory parameter was significantly higher for the read-read condition than for the generate-read condition, G2(1) = 5.24, p < 0.03, and the generate-generate condition, G2(1) = 4.66, p < 0.04. However, in the switched-context condition, a positive generation effect was observed when the read-read condition was compared with the generate-generate condition, G2(1) = 5.26, p < 0.03. No effect of context reinstatement was observed in read-read (G2(1) = 0.90, ns) and generate-read (G2(1) = 0.86, ns) conditions. However, in the generate-generate condition a negative effect of context reinstatement occurred, G2(1) = 6.22, p < 0.02. Guessing bias. The value of parameter a = g was the lowest in the read-read condition and the highest in the generate-generate condition. In the read-read condition it was significantly lower than the neutral value of 0.50, G2(1) = 7.23, p < 0.008, in the generate-read condition it was not different form 0.50, G2(1) = 0.13, ns, while in the generate-generate condition it tended to be higher than 0.50, G2(1) = 3.86, p = 0.05.

and, surprisingly, in a significant negative effect in the generategenerate condition. The generate-generate condition was the least favorable condition for the context reinstatement effect in Experiment 1B because perceptual generation enhances context encoding, therefore contextual cues provided at test are less useful than in the case of poorly encoded context in the read condition, nevertheless, a negative effect was not expected. Further investigation is needed to verify the sustainability of such an effect. In the next two experiments a novel-context condition will be added during the test phase of these experiments. This will allow us to contrast old-context conditions (switched and same) with the unfamiliar context condition. According to global matching models of memory activation of a memory trace is a function of the match between information in the cue and information in memory, therefore, the novel context accompanying a test item may activate information encoded in memory to a lesser degree than the familiar context encountered during the learning phase (cf. Murnane & Phelps, 1994, 1995). Moreover, using a third context will allow to test some alternative assumptions concerning response biases and source memory parameters (i.e., a and g parameters will be set free and d Same and d Switched parameters will be set equal) that could be not tested when only two contexts were used (cf. Keefe, Arnold, Bayen & Harvey, 1999; Riefer, Hu & Batchelder, 1994).

DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTS 1A AND 1B For item memory, the results confirmed a positive generation effect in Experiment 1A where a conceptual generation task was used. In the case of the perceptual generation task (Exp. 1B), generation at encoding did not enhance item memory, which is consistent with some previous observations (cf. Nieznanski, 2013). However, it seems that at least in the case of switched-context items repeating the same cognitive operations at test as those that were engaged at study enhanced item memory. The better item memory in the generate-generate condition than in the generate-read condition of Experiment 1B is consistent with results reported by Glisky and Rabinowitz (1985) and it is well suited in a processual account (Kolers & Roediger, 1984). Negative effects of generation in the case of intrinsic context and positive effects in extrinsic context memory reported in previous research (e.g., Mulligan, 2011; Nieznanski, 2012) were confirmed only in the switched-context conditions of Experiments 1A and 1B. However, the most important results concern context reinstatement effects. In the case of the conceptual generation task and intrinsic context (Exp. 1A), a positive effect of context reinstatement was observed in the generate-read condition, in the generate-generate condition context memory was numerically better in the same-context than in the switched-context condition but this difference did not prove its significance.3 The switchedcontext condition resulted in a complete failure in context memory in the generate-read condition. It seems that the generation task performed at encoding resulted in very poor encoding of contextual information, therefore, salient cues available at test in the same-context condition significantly improved performance. In the case of the perceptual generation task and extrinsic context (Exp. 1B), context reinstatement resulted in slightly better (but non-significant) context memory in the read-read condition

© 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

EXPERIMENT 2A The aim of this experiment was to verify the results of Experiment 1A with slightly different procedure to ensure their generality. In comparison with that experiment, three types of test-contexts were used, that is, words printed in two font colors were presented at study, while at test, words were presented in the same font color, a switched font color or a novel font color. Such a design should help to distinguish the influence of response biases from context memory effects in multinomial model analyses and to compare the advantageous (same context) and disadvantageous (switched context) conditions with a neutral one. In Experiment 2A, the read-read condition was compared with the generate-read condition. It was predicted that no effect of context reinstatement will be observed for the read-read condition but in the case of the generate-read condition, a positive effect will be obtained as was in Experiment 1A. In Experiment 2A, a letter-transposition task was used instead of a conceptual generation task. Such a generation task caused a negative generation effect on intrinsic context memory in previous research (Niezna nski, 2012, 2013), however, this task cannot be classified as being ‘conceptual.’ Therefore, showing that letter-transposition results in a positive context reinstatement effect as the lettercompletion task did in Experiment 1A, would suggest that this effect is not due to the kind of processing promoted at encoding but is rather caused by resource limitations resulting from the generation task performed at encoding. Letter transposition is a generation task in which single words can be used at study instead of word pairs as it was in Experiment 1A. Moreover, comparisons between Experiments 2A and 2B are more entitled when the same generation task is used in both experiments.

414 M. Nieznanski Method Participants. Sixty undergraduates participated individually in the experiment in exchange for course credit, 30 in the read-read condition and 30 in the generate-read condition.

Materials and procedure A set of 120 words were chosen from a thesaurus. All words were concrete nouns, five to six letters in length and had no obvious associations with the colors used in the experiment. As in the previous experiment, two sessions were conducted in order to gather more data from the participants. In each session, three words served as buffers at the beginning and three at the end of the word list, 36 words were targets, and the remaining 18 words were used as distracters during the recognition memory test phase. The distracters were synonyms to words used as targets, half of them to words presented in one font color and the other half to words presented in the other font color. During the study phase, at the first session half of the words were presented in a red font and the other half in a green font. At the second session, the font colors were blue and brown. Each of the slides was displayed on a computer screen for 3 s with a split second delay between the slides. In the readread condition, participants were instructed to read the words aloud and in the generate-read condition participants were asked to transpose two beginning letters of each word. All the participants were asked to remember the words as well as their colors. During the test phase, words were presented in one of three font colors: green, red or yellow (at the first session) and blue, brown or pink (at the second session). Among the words presented at test, one third were presented in the same color as during the study, one third in a switched color, and one third in a novel color. For example, a word that was presented in the color red during the study, could be presented in red (the same), green (switched), or yellow (novel) font color. Three versions of slides were prepared and counterbalanced across participants; when a particular word had the same color at test in one version, the color was switched in the second and a novel color was used in the third version of slides. At test, participants were first asked to recognize whether the item was old or new. Next, for items recognized as old, they were asked to recall the font color.


participants would prefer one color over another.4 After imposing these restrictions, the overall goodness of fit of the combined model5 was satisfactory, G2(4) = 1.80, p = 0.773. Parameter values have been shown in Table 2A. A submodel with alternative assumptions was also used to analyse the data. In this submodel, a and g parameters were set free and d Same and d Switched parameters were set equal. The response frequencies have been shown in Appendix 4. Item memory. In the read-read condition, the item memory parameter (D) did not differ significantly between items tested with the same context than for items tested with the switched or novel context. Item memory was lower in the novel-context condition than in the switched-context condition, G2(1) = 3.92, p < 0.05. In the generate-read condition, the results were quite similar, item memory tended to be lower in the novel-context condition than in the switched-context condition, G2(1) = 3.50, p = 0.06. When the read-read condition was compared with the generate-read condition, item memory was slightly better in the generate-read condition, however, in any case the difference did not approach significance (G2(1) ranged from 0.59 to 1.04, ns). Context memory and response bias. One significant negative generation effect was found, that is, the context memory parameter (d) was higher in the read-read condition than in the generate-read condition in the novel-context condition, G2(1) = 6.23, p < 0.02. In the switched-context condition, a negative effect was also observed but was not proven by statistical significance, G2(1) = 1.90, ns. In the same-context condition, the parameter values were nearly identical for read-read and generate-read conditions. In the read-read condition, no effect of context reinstatement on context memory was found. That is, context memory in the same-context condition was not different than in the switchedcontext condition, G2(1) = 0.48, ns, and the novel-context condition, G2(1) = 0.88, ns. No tendency of preferring the testcongruent context was found, that is, parameter a = g was equal to the neutral value of 0.50. Also analyses conducted with the alternative multinomial submodel revealed no difference between context memory in the novel-context condition (d Novel = 0.44) and the familiar-contexts condition (d Same = d Switched = 0.48), G2(1) = 0.47, ns.

RESULTS The participants failed to generate only 0.31% of the words in the generate-read condition. In order to carry out analyses, some restrictions have to be put on the parameters of the multinomial model. The same restrictions were assumed for read-read and generate-read conditions. First, it was assumed that the distracter detection parameters were equal to the respective old item memory parameters, namely D New item / Old context = D Old item / Same context, and D New item / Novel context = D Old item / Novel context. Second, it was assumed that guessing bias toward an answer congruent with the font color presented at test was the same for undetected items and detected-but-not-discriminated items, a = g Test-congruent. For items tested in a novel (neutral) color the response bias was set constant and equaled to 0.50 because there was no reason why © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Table 2A. Parameter estimates and standard errors from multinomial model analyses in Experiment 2A with the perceptual generation task and font color as context

Parameter

Read-read

Generateread

D Same context = D New item / Old context D Switched context D Novel context = D New item / Novel context d Same context d Switched context d Novel context a = g Test–congruent a = g Neutral (set constant) b

0.66 0.69 0.63 0.53 0.42 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.36

0.68 0.73 0.66 0.52 0.23 0.26 0.45 0.50 0.49

[0.02] [0.02] [0.02] [0.08] [0.09] [0.05] [0.05] [0.02]

[0.02] [0.03] [0.02] [0.07] [0.11] [0.05] [0.05] [0.02]



In the generate-read condition, context memory in the samecontext condition was significantly higher than in the novelcontext condition, G2(1) = 6.76, p < 0.01, and tended to be higher than in the switched-context condition, G2(1) = 3.12, p = 0.08. There was no difference between switched-context and novel-context conditions. No significant tendency of preferring the test-congruent context was found, that is, parameter a = g was not different from the neutral value of 0.50, G2(1) = 1.22, ns. These results were confirmed when the alternative multinomial submodel was used, that is, context memory in the novelcontext condition (d Novel = 0.26) was significantly lower than in the familiar-contexts condition (d Same = d Switched = 0.39), G2(1) = 4.66, p < 0.04.

length. As in Experiment 1B, in the generate task, participants were asked to transpose the two beginning letters of each word. At study, words were presented either on the left of the screen or on the right. Participants were asked to remember the words as well as their location. At test, words were presented on the same side, the switched side or on the novel location (i.e., in the centre of the screen). Participants were instructed to recognize whether the word was presented on the left side, on the right side of the screen or whether it was new. The order of stimulus presentation at study and test was random. Presentation rate at study (4 s for each word) and response recording at test were controlled using E-Prime software.

RESULTS EXPERIMENT 2B In this experiment, as in Experiment 1B, the perceptual task and extrinsic context were used. However, this time a novel-context condition was added at test and the read-generate condition was compared with the generate-generate condition. On the one hand, in line with the required-reconstruction hypothesis, the positive context reinstatement effect is most plausible in conditions that are unfavorable for context encoding but provide salient contextual cues at retrieval. In the case of the intrinsic context, generating items at encoding but reading them at test was the most favorable condition for positive context reinstatement effect and such an effect was, in fact, observed in Experiments 1A and 2A. However, in the case of the perceptual generation task and extrinsic context it would be most favorable to read items at encoding but generate them at test because the letter-transposition task enhances processing of extrinsic context as it has been suggested by the results of some recent research (Mulligan, 2011; Nieznanski, 2012). In the present experiment, the generategenerate condition was also used because it resulted in an unexpected negative context reinstatement effect in Experiment 1B. Adding the novel-context condition should help in explaining why such an effect occurred previously. On the other hand, a null effect may be obtained for all the conditions used in the Experiment 2B because contextual cues may be useless in the case of extrinsic context. Participants may use non-contextual cues, as inter-item associations, to make context attributions.

In multinomial model analyses, restrictions imposed on parameter values were the same as those in Experiment 2A. The overall goodness of fit of the combined model6 was satisfactory, G2(4) = 4.04, p = 0.401. Parameter values have been shown in Table 2B and the response frequencies in Appendix 5. Item memory. Item memory was better in the generate-generate condition than in the read-generate condition for same-context, switched-context and novel-context conditions (G2(1) = 3.82, p = 0.05; G2(1) = 8.35, p < 0.004; G2(1) = 9.00, p < 0.003, respectively). The positive effect of context reinstatement was observed only in the read-generate condition, that is, item memory was better in the same context condition than in the switched context condition, G2(1) = 4.21, p < 0.05. Context memory and response bias. No significant differences were observed between context memory parameters in readgenerate and generate-generate conditions, however, context memory tended to be better in the generate-generate condition than in the read-generate condition for items presented in the novel context, G2(1) = 3.25, p = 0.07. No effect of context reinstatement was observed in read-generate and generate-generate conditions. Guessing parameters were not significantly different from the neutral value of 0.50, both in read-generate and generate-generate conditions, G2(1) = 0.04, ns, G2(1) = 0.80, ns, respectively. These results were confirmed when the alternative multinomial submodel was used. In the read-generate condition, context

Method Participants. A total of 60 psychology students participated in exchange for course credit, 30 in the read-generate condition and 30 in the generate-generate condition. Participants were from the same pool as those in Experiment 2A.

Materials and procedure Most elements of the procedure resembled those used in Experiment 1B but were extended by the novel-context condition. As previously, two study-test sessions were conducted with participants. In each session, 24 words served as study words, three words were buffers at the beginning and three at the end of the word list, and 18 words were used as distracters at the test phase. All words were concrete nouns, six to seven letters in © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Table 2B. Parameter estimates and standard errors from multinomial model analyses in Experiment 2B with the perceptual generation task and location as context

Parameter

Readgenerate

Generategenerate

D Same context = D New item / Old context D Switched context D Novel context = D New item / Novel context d Same context d Switched context d Novel context a = g Test–congruent a = g Neutral (set constant) b

0.76 0.67 0.73 0.39 0.52 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.50

0.81 0.82 0.82 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.45 0.50 0.57

[0.02] [0.04] [0.02] [0.10] [0.10] [0.05] [0.05] [0.03]

[0.02] [0.03] [0.02] [0.08] [0.09] [0.05] [0.06] [0.03]

416 M. Nieznanski memory in the novel-context condition (d Novel = 0.48) did not differ from that in the familiar-contexts condition (d Same = d Switched = 0.45), G2(1) = 0.17, ns. Similarly, in the generategenerate condition, context memory in the novel-context condition (d Novel = 0.61) was not different than in the familiarcontexts condition (d Same = d Switched = 0.55), G2(1) = 1.04, ns.

DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTS 2A AND 2B Adding the novel-context condition in both Experiment 2A and 2B resulted in more neutral response strategies adopted by participants. In Experiments 1A and 1B, significant tendencies to guess that the context was congruent or incongruent with that presented at test were observed, however, no such result was obtained in Experiments 2A or 2B. Probably, seeing novel context, participants realized that context familiarity is not a good basis for guessing and became more neutral in their responding. Experiment 2A, with an intrinsic context and perceptual generation task, confirmed the positive context reinstatement effect in the generate-read condition. This effect remained significant when the multinomial model assumptions were modified by setting a and g parameters free. However, in the case of the extrinsic context and the perceptual generation task, the negative effect of context reinstatement observed in Experiment 1B was not replicated. No effect of context reinstatement in the readgenerate condition suggests that contextual cues were outshined by non-contextual cues. Alternatively, the influence of item generation was too weak to make contextual cues salient at test, or extrinsic context was quite well encoded in the read study condition that no context reconstruction was required at retrieval. These alternative options need further investigation.

GENERAL DISCUSSION A view commonly held in psychological literature is that reinstating the original study context at test creates the optimal circumstances for memory performance. This effect, however, has been found to be relatively weak or even completely absent in many studies on recognition memory (cf. Smith, 1988; Smith & Vela, 2001). Researchers have found out that extrinsic/global contexts and salient item information that overshadows context information at encoding or outshines it at retrieval, are unfavorable circumstances for the context reinstatement effect in item memory. In the experiments presented here, context effects on recognition memory were also quite elusive. Nevertheless, the main aim of this research was the investigation of context reinstatement effects on context memory. Previous research using voice as a context suggested that the positive effects of context reinstatement can be expected for intrinsic context memory (Dodson, 2007; Dodson & Shimamura, 2000), however, several other studies failed to obtain such effects (Craik & Kirsner, 1974, Starns & Hicks, 2005; Starns & Hicks 2013; Vogt & Br€oder, 2007). In the present study, although the read-read condition of Experiments 1A and 2A showed no trace of the context reinstatement effect, this effect became evident in the generate-read condition. These results demonstrate that context effects are sensitive to the appropriateness (but not necessarily to the similarity) of encoding and retrieval conditions. © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd


The required-reconstruction hypothesis predicted that context effects should be stronger when contextual information is salient at retrieval but poorly encoded at the study phase. In such a configuration of conditions context information is ‘overshadowed’ at encoding but effectively elucidated by salient retrieval contextual cues. This interpretation follows after Dodson’s (2007) account, which suggests that contextual information provided at test enhances the construction of an illusory recollection of the contextual features. Such an explanation is embedded in Tulving’s (1976) theory of ecphoric processes in recall and recognition. According to this theory, recollection is the ‘joint product’ of the memory trace information and the ecphoric (retrieval) cue, moreover, in memory performance “small amounts of one kind of information can be compensated for by larger amounts of the other kind” (Tulving, 1976, p. 63) (see also Schacter, Norman & Koutstaal, 1998). In the case of extrinsic context, various configurations of encoding and retrieval conditions did not produce positive context reinstatement effects in both presented experiments. Such a result corresponds with the lack of context reinstatement effects reported in literature on recognition memory when extrinsic context is used (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, 1980). A possible explanation for this null effect is that contextual cues are outshined by non-contextual cues, that is, extrinsic context provided at test is redundant, because participants identify context due to retrieval of inter-item associations. It is also possible that context was encoded too well to require reconstruction at test (note that the values of parameters d were numerically higher for extrinsic than intrinsic context memory in the present experiments). The internal-cuing account (Starns & Hicks, 2013) and the requested-reconstruction hypothesis proposed here, seems to be complementary, and they cannot replace each other. The internalcuing account cannot explain why the generate-read condition results in positive context-reinstatement effect for intrinsic context. There is no reason to expect any difficulty in an internal reinstatement of two font colors during retrieval due to item generation at encoding. Similarly, the required-reconstruction hypothesis cannot be applied to experiments conducted by Starns and Hicks. At test trials they used both same and switched contexts as retrieval cues, therefore it cannot be indicated which contextual cue was used by participants in the reconstruction process. The idea that the match between encoding and testing contexts is a critical determinant of success in memory performance is often considered in light of such theories as the encoding specificity principle and the transfer-appropriate processing framework (Morris, Bransford & Franks, 1977; Tulving & Thomson, 1973). However, as pointed out by Nairne (2002) and Surprenant and Neath (2009), these theories in fact only postulate that memory depends on the relation between processing at study and test and this relation does not have to be a match or similarity, in other words, processing should be appropriate, not necessarily similar. The overall match is not the critical variable in predicting memory performance and it may result in improvement, decrease or a lack of an effect on memory performance (Poirier, Nairne, Morin, Zimmermann, Koutmeridou & Fowler, 2012). The experiments presented in the present paper showed that a positive context reinstatement effect on context memory may be expected for intrinsic but not for the extrinsic context. Moreover,


processing that disrupts context encoding but makes contextual cues salient at retrieval creates circumstances that are appropriate for a context reinstatement effect to occur. This project was supported by Grant 2011/01/B/HS6/05853 from the National Science Centre in Poland. A portion of the data from the paper was presented as a poster at 54th Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen (TeaP), Mannheim, 1–4 April 2012. The author is grateful to anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

NOTES 1

Alternatively, one can assume that the reconstruction process does not result in illusory recollection but in a tendency to guess that the item was originally presented in the same context during encoding as during test. In such a case, the required-reconstruction hypothesis would predict stronger context-congruent guessing when context is poorly encoded than when it is encoded effectively. 2 Context guessing may occur when item detection succeeds but context discrimination fails (a) or when both item detection and source discrimination fail (g), for more details see Appendix 1 and Fig. A1. 3 This lack of a difference may be due to insufficient statistical power in the data. In the generate-generate condition context information is relatively poorly encoded, therefore it should benefit from context reinstatement at test. However, the influence of context cues may be attenuated by generation operation performed at test. 4 Alternatively, one can treat setting the guessing parameter equal to 0.50, not as a model assumption but as a hypothesis to be tested. In any condition of Experiments 2A and 2B, the hypothesis about neutral guessing tendency for novel context could not be rejected, G2(1) values ranged from 0.02 to 3.16, and were not statistically significant. 5 The goodness of fit computed separately for each condition was G2(2) = 0.61, p = .738, and G2(2) = 1.19, p = 0.552, for read-read and generate-read conditions, respectively. 6 The goodness of fit computed separately for each condition was G2(2) = 3.61, p = 0.164, and G2(2) = 0.43, p = 0.808, for read-generate and generate-generate conditions, respectively.

REFERENCES Batchelder, W. H. & Riefer, D. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. Psychological Review, 97, 548–564. Bayen, U. J., Murnane, K. & Erdfelder, E. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 197–215. Boywitt, C. D. & Meiser, T. (2012). The role of attention for contextcontext binding of intrinsic and extrinsic features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1099–1107. Br€oder, A. & Meiser, T. (2007). Measuring source memory. Zeitschrift f€ ur Psychologie, 215, 52–60. Craik, F. I. M. & Kirsner, K. (1974). The effect of speaker’s voice on word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 274–284. Dalton, P. (1993). The role of stimulus familiarity in context-dependent recognition. Memory & Cognition, 21, 223–234. Dodson, C. S. (2007). Retrieval-based illusory recollections: Why studytest contextual changes impair source memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1211–1221. Dodson, C. S. & Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Differential effects of cue dependency on item and source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1023–1044. Ecker, U. K. H., Maybery, M. & Zimmer, H. D. (2013). Binding of intrinsic and extrinsic features in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 218–234.


Context effects on context memory 417 Fernandez, A. & Glenberg, A. M. (1985). Changing environmental context does not reliably affect memory. Memory & Cognition, 13, 333–345. Franco-Watkins, A. M. & Dougherty, M. R. (2006). Word concreteness and encoding effects on context-dependent discrimination. Memory & Cognition, 34, 973–985. Geiselman, R. E. & Bjork, R. A. (1980). Primary versus secondary rehearsal in imagined voices: Differential effects on recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 188–205. Glisky, E. L. & Rabinowitz, J. C. (1985). Enhancing the generation effect through repetition of operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 193–205. Godden, D. & Baddeley, A. (1980). When does context influence recognition memory? British Journal of Psychology, 71, 99–104. Humphreys, M. S. (1976). Relational information and the context effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 4, 221–232. Jurica, P. J. & Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Monitoring item and source information: Evidence for a negative generation effect in source memory. Memory & Cognition, 27, 648–656. Keefe, R. S. E., Arnold, M. C., Bayen, U. J., McEvoy, J. P. & Wilson, W. H. (2002). Source-monitoring deficits for self-generated stimuli in schizophrenia: Multinomial modeling of data from three sources. Schizophrenia Research, 57, 51–67. Kolers, P. A. & Roediger, H. L. III (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 425–449. Light, L. L. & Carter-Sobell, L. (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 1–11. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533. Moshagen, M. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54. Mulligan, N. W. (2004). Generation and memory for contextual detail. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 838–855. Mulligan, N. W. (2011). Generation disrupts memory for intrinsic context but not extrinsic context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1543–1562. Mulligan, N. W., Lozito, J. P. & Rosner, Z. A. (2006). Generation and context memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 836–846. Murnane, K. & Phelps, M. P. (1994). When does a different environmental context make a difference in recognition? A global activation model. Memory & Cognition, 22, 584–590. Murnane, K. & Phelps, M. P. (1995). Effects of changes in relative cue strength on context-dependent recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 158–172. Nairne, J. S. (2002). The myth of the encoding–retrieval match. Memory, 10, 389–395. Niezna nski, M. (2011). Generation difficulty and memory for source. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1593–1608. Niezna nski, M. (2012). Effects of generation on source memory: A test of the resource tradeoff versus processing hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 765–780. Niezna nski, M. (2013). Effects of resource demanding processing on context memory for context-related versus context-unrelated items. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 745–758. Perfect, T. J., Mayes, A. R., Downes, J. J. & Van Eijk, R. (1996). Does context discriminate recollection from familiarity in recognition memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 797–813. Poirier, M., Nairne, J. S., Morin, C., Zimmermann, F. G. S., Koutmeridou, K. & Fowler, J. (2012). Memory as discrimination: A challenge to the encoding-retrieval match principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 16–29. Riefer, D. M., Hu, X. & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). Response strategies in source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 680–693.

418 M. Nieznanski Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A. & Koutstaal, W. (1998). The constructive neuroscience of constructive memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 289–318. Smith, S. M. (1988). Environmental context-dependent memory. In G. M. Davies & D. M. Thomson (Eds.), Memory in context: Context in memory (pp. 13–34). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, S. M. (1994). Theoretical principles of context-dependent memory. In P. E. Morris & M. Gruneberg (Eds.), Theoretical aspects of memory (2nd edn, pp. 168–195). London: Routledge. Smith, S. M. & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context–dependent memory: A review and meta–analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 203–220. Starns, J. J. & Hicks, J. L. (2005). Source dimensions are retrieved independently in multidimensional monitoring tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1213–1220. Starns, J. J. & Hicks, J. L. (2013). Internal reinstatement hides cuing effects in source memory tasks. Memory & Cognition, 41, 953–966. Surprenant, A. M. & Neath, I. (2009). Principles of memory. New York: Psychology Press. Tulving, E. (1976). Ecphoric processes in recall and recognition. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 37–73). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Tulving, E. & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373. Vogt, V. & Br€oder, A. (2007). Independent retrieval of source dimensions: An extension of results by Starns and Hicks (2005) and a comment on the ACSIM measure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 443–450.


dSame DSame

Correct aCongr

Correct

1-aCongr

Incorrect

gCongr

Correct

1-gCongr

Incorrect

1-dSame Old / Same context b 1-DSame 1-b

"New"

dSwitched

Correct

DSwitched

aCongr

Incorrect

1-aCongr

Correct

gCongr

Incorrect

1-gCongr

Correct

1-dSwitched Old / Switched context b 1-DSwitched 1-b

"New"

dNovel

Correct

DNovel

aNeutral

Correct "A"

1-aNeutral

Incorrect "B"

gNeutral

Correct "A"

1-gNeutral

Incorrect "B"

1-dNovel Old / Novel context b 1-DNovel

Received 7 December 2013, accepted 11 June 2014

1-b

"New"

DNew-old

APPENDIX 1: MULTINOMIAL MODEL ANALYSES The model created for presented experiments was based on the two-high-threshold multinomial processing tree model of source monitoring proposed by Bayen et al. (1996). The present model is aimed for designs using contexts of equal strength, for a more general model see Vogt and Br€oder (2007). The model constructed for Experiments 1A and 1B consists of three trees and the model for the Experiments 2A and 2B consists of five trees (see Fig. A1). The first tree describes processing of old items which were presented in the same context at study and test. The second tree refers to processing of old items the context of which was switched at test, and the third tree (for Expts. 2A and 2B) describes processing of old items presented in a novel context at test. The next two trees describe processing of new items; presented at test in one of the contexts used at study or presented in a novel context (Expts. 2A, 2B). In these trees there are specific item memory parameters D, and context memory parameters d representing the probability of correct context identification for items recognized as old. Moreover, there are response and guessing bias parameters. The a Test–congruent and g Test–congruent parameters represent the probability of guessing that a detected as old but not discriminated item or an undetected item was presented in a context congruent with that presented at test. Such guessing produces correct responses for items which were presented in the same context, and incorrect responses for items the context of which was switched. In the case of items presented in a novel context at test, the response bias is neutral because of there being no sensible reason to choose one context over the other. Finally, the model contains parameter b which represents guessing that a new or undetected old item is old. The full version of the model © 2014 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

New / Old context

"New" gCongr

Testcongruent

1-gCongr

TestIncongruent

b 1-DNew-old

"New"

1-b DNew-novel New / Novel context

"New"

gNeutral

"Context A"

1-gNeutral

"Context B"

b 1-DNew-novel 1-b

"New"

Fig. A1. Processing tree model constructed for Experiments 2A and 2B on the basis of the two–high–threshold multinomial model of source– monitoring developed by Bayen et al. (1996). Rectangles on the left refer to item and context types, rectangles on the right refer to response types. Latent cognitive processes postulated by the model are the following: D Same = the probability of detecting an old item presented at test in the same context; D Switched = the probability of detecting an old item presented at test in the switched context; D Novel = the probability of detecting an old item presented at test in a novel context different from those used at study; D New–Old = the probability of detecting that a distracter presented at test in an old context is new; D New–Novel = the probability of detecting that a distracter presented at test in a novel context is new; d Same = the probability of correctly discriminating the context of an item presented in the same-context condition; d Switched = the probability of correctly discriminating the context of an item presented in the switchedcontext condition; a Congr = the probability of guessing that a detected item was presented at study with the same context as it was presented at test; g Congr = the probability of guessing that an undetected item was presented at study in the same context as it was presented at test; a Neutral = the probability of guessing that a detected item presented at test in a novel context was studied in a particular context (Context A); g Neutral = the probability of guessing that an undetected item presented at test in a novel context was studied in a particular context (Context A); b = the probability of guessing old to undetected item.



of model goodness of fit and parameter estimates were carried out with the multiTree computer program (Moshagen, 2010). The analyses were based on response frequencies shown in Appendices 2–4. An a level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests, at this level a G2(1) = 3.84 indicates a critical value.

is technically non-identifiable because there are not enough degrees of freedom in the data. Therefore, the number of parameters has to be reduced by imposing certain restrictions on parameters. The restrictions used in the particular experiment have been described in its results section. All computations

APPENDIX 2: RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OBTAINED IN EXPERIMENT 1A Read-read condition

Generate-read condition

Generate-generate condition

Study-test condition

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Old item /same color Old item /switched color

480 391 Testcongruent 74

190 252 Testincongruent 53

226 253 ‘New’



162 175 ‘New’



120 129 ‘New’

New item /old color

545

594

564

APPENDIX 3: RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OBTAINED IN EXPERIMENT 1B Read-read condition

Generate-read condition

Generate-generate condition


Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Old item /same localization Old item /switched localization



133 145 ‘New’



140 155 ‘New’



100 88 ‘New’

New item /old localization

530

505

517

APPENDIX 4: RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OBTAINED IN EXPERIMENT 2A Read-read

Generate-read


Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Old item /same color Old item /switched color Old item /novel color

411 393 372 Test–congruent 46 ‘Color A’ 21

154 186 175 Test–incongruent 45 ‘Color B’ 35

155 141 173 ‘New’ 629 ‘New’ 314

413 394 355 Test–congruent 53 ‘Color A’ 28

192 224 233 Test–incongruent 65 ‘Color B’ 27

112 99 128 ‘New’ 602 ‘New’ 305

New item /old color New item /novel color

APPENDIX 5: RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OBTAINED IN EXPERIMENT 2B Read-generate

Generate-generate


Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Correct

Incorrect

‘New’

Old item /same location Old item /switched location Old item /novel location

288 292 296 Test-congruent 50 ‘Left’ 33

151 125 128 Test-incongruent 46 ‘Right’ 18

57 79 72 ‘New’ 648 ‘New’ 321

313 345 341 Test-congruent 36 ‘Left’ 16

129 98 101 Test-incongruent 44 ‘Right’ 18

38 37 38 ‘New’ 640 ‘New’ 326

New item /old location New item /novel location


The medial temporal lobes distinguish between within-item and item-context relations during autobiographical memory retrieval.

Retrieval Goal Modulates Memory for Context.

Retrieval-induced versus context-induced forgetting: Does retrieval-induced forgetting depend on context shifts?

Context, integration, and retrieval.

Memory detection using fMRI - does the encoding context matter?

Executive Resources and Item-Context Binding: Exploring the Influence of Concurrent Inhibition, Updating, and Shifting Tasks on Context Memory.

Reinstatement of encoding context during recollection: behavioural and neuroimaging evidence of a double dissociation.

D5 and D2 Receptors in Context-Dependent Extinction Learning and Memory Reinstatement.

Unraveling Brain Functional Connectivity of encoding and retrieval in the context of education.

The retrieval context of intervening tasks influences subsequent memory in younger and older adults.

Imagining another context during encoding offsets context-dependent forgetting.

Role of corticostriatal circuits in context-induced reinstatement of drug seeking.

Role of nucleus accumbens shell neuronal ensembles in context-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking.

The neural correlates of correctly rejecting lures during memory retrieval: the role of item relatedness.

Encoding and retrieval processes involved in the access of source information in the absence of item memory.

Context-specific prospective-memory processing: evidence for flexible attention allocation adjustments after intention encoding.

A modified shape context method for shape based object retrieval.

Context memory in Alzheimer's disease.

Distinct Hippocampal Pathways Mediate Dissociable Roles of Context in Memory Retrieval.

Color context as a factor in encoding and as an organization device for retrieval of word lists.

Multisensory context portends object memory.

Retrieval speeds context fluctuation: why semantic generation enhances later learning but hinders prior learning.

Context Dependent Encoding Using Convolutional Dynamic Networks.

Putting retrieval-induced forgetting in context: an inhibition-free, context-based account.