REMEMBERING: THE ROLE OF THE CUE Remembering as “ecphory” –A synthesis of engram, current state, and retrieval cue (Semon, 1909) Cue Specificity –Free versus cued recall Tulving & Psotka (1971) study categorized list free recall:.40 then cued recall:.70 –Recall versus recognition Tulving & Watkins (1973) study word list (e.g., grape) then cue: vary stem size (gr-- = 2) 0 (recall).25 full (recognition).85

Encoding/Retrieval Specificity (Tulving, 1973) –Compares E/R Match versus Mismatch –Small but reliable effects of: Verbal/associative “context” Encoding task and level Physical environment Internal state and mood –Larger effects when other cues weak Eich (1975): Marijuana / Placebo Study categorized list of 48 words Study Test Free Recall Cued Recall Pla Pla Pla Mar Mar Pla Mar Mar

E/R Specifity (cont’d) –Larger effects with “contextual encoding” Eich (1985): study / test room match / mismatch study long word list imagery instructions: isolated integrate with environment

CUE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING Occlusion –Cue activates other memories –Watkins’ (1979) cue overload principle –The “fan effect” –Classic associative interference Retroactive Interference Design RIA-BA-CA-B controlA-BrestA-B Proactice Interference Design PIA-CA-BA-B ControlrestA-BA-B

ASSOCIATIVE INTERFERENCE AND FORGETTING task: study and remember lists of paired-associates (A-B) C B A learning AC interferes with AB AB learned first: Retroactive (RI) AC learned first: Proactive (PI)

RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE IN PAIRED-ASSOCIATE MEMORY (Barnes & Underwood, 1959) task: study and remember lists of paired-associates 10 Trials of AB pairs then 1 to 20 trials of AC pairs is AB association erased (“unlearned”)? NO: recognition-matching still good

Occlusion (cont’d) –Part-list cuing effects (Roediger, 1973) categorized lists, seven instances cue with: pc(remaining) category name only.63 and one instance.62 and two instances.56 and five instances.52 –Output interference Recall of items within a category reduces PC of remaining items –(Smith 1971): categorized lists - controls order of category cues - recall decreases across order

Occlusion (cont’d) –Retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, Bjork & Bjork, 1994) Study sets of category-instance pairs FRUIT - orange; FRUIT - apple, etc TOOL - drilll; TOOL - hammer, etc Retrieval practice on half of some categories: FRUIT – or_____ Cued recall test of all pairs: FRUIT - ? RP+RP-No RP “good” e.g.’s “weak” e.g.’s –Gargano & Chandler (1999): less interference with “study” practice only –Veling & van Kippenberg (2004): recognition speed for target words RP+: 678 ms RP-: 810 ms NRP: 759 ms

CUE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING (CONT’D) Suppression –Target is inhibited, becomes less accessible to other cues “cross-cue” forgetting observed in some studies: Anderson & Spellman, 1995: practiced within-categ RED-blood.74 unpracticed within RED-tomato.22 unpracticed across, related FOOD-strawberry.22 unpracticed across, unrelated TOOL-drill.38

Suppression (cont’d) –But some failures too: Gargano & Chandler (1999) Type of Cue during… practice test RP- No RP FRUIT-or___ FRUIT-or___ FRUIT-__nge FRUIT-or___ Fischler & Woods (1985): train AB, DB associates RI with half of A stimuli: AC pairs strong forgetting of A – B no forgetting of D - B

IS MEMORY PERMANENT? The arguments for and against –Some memories seem to “last a lifetime” –But they may not; and others don’t –Much of forgetting seems to be “retrieval failure” –But sometimes all cues fail –Brain stimulation seems to awaken specific memories (Penfield, 1952) –But the effect is rare (40 of 520 patients), and events seem more schematic than episodic –Interference in the lab dominates forgetting –But the “forgetting function” is beautifully time-dependent (Power Law) –No confirmed mechanism of “decay” at neural level –But some evidence, and a long way to go