1. 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

2. Cue/Target Distinctiveness (vs. overload) –The von Restorff effect (1933) –“flashbulb” memories as distinctive –“fan effects” and cue overload Roediger (73): cued recall p(r Four items per category:.69 Seven items per category:.59 –Can cue and target distinctiveness be distinguished? Encoding Specificity Designs retrieval condition A’ B’ Encoding AA-A’ A-B’ Condition BB-A’ B-B’

3. Encoding/Retrieval Specificity (Tulving, 1973) –Compares E/R Match versus Mismatch –Small but reliable effects of: Verbal/associative “context”: Physical environment: –Godden & Baddeley (1975): scuba –Smith, Glenberg & Bjork (1978): rooms Tulving & Thompson (1970) Test Context / cues Study contextnoneweakstrong None (BLACK).49.43.68 Weak (train-BLACK).30.82.23 Eich (1985): same or different rooms 24 words studied recallrecognition Imagery:samediffsamediff isolated.26.24.95.93 integrated.45.31.90.91

4. Pharmacological context: Eich (1975): Marijuana or Placebo Study categorized list of 48 words Study Test Free Recall Cued Recall Pla Pla11.524.0 Pla Mar 9.923.7 Mar Pla 6.722.6 Mar Mar10.522.3 Goodwin, et al. (1969): recall errors 10 oz 80 proof vodka or placebo Retrieval state Encoding stateSoberIntoxicated Sober 1.25 2.25 Intoxicated 4.58 2.50

5. Affective mood as context: Mental operations as context (TAP): Eich & Metcalfe (1989): happy & sad recall Word-generation, not reading, shows effect: Test mood Encoding moodHappy Sad Happy.32.17 Sad.17.27 Glisky & Rabinowitz (1985): read/generate Generation effect larger if redone at test task at test: Encoding taskread complete Read.60.59 Complete.76.86

6. Encoding/Retrieval Specificity (contd) –Item-specific versus relational processing: Principles of Encoding Specificity –Diverse contexts –Small relative to main effects, but replicable –Larger when “binding” of context is greater, and other cues less effective Hunt & Einstein (1981): taxonomic (Rel) and ad hoc (Unrel) word lists recall recognition Type of List Encoding task R U R U sort (relational).42.47.73.89 rate (item-specific).48.33.93.91

7. OTHER WAYS TO RETRIEVE Repeated test opportunities –Reminiscence, maybe hypermnesia –Continued test phase –Spontaneous recovery? Hypnosis? –Long interest in hypnosis and recovered memories –Lots of anecdotal evidence –Lab studies suggest increases in hit rate, at expense of false alarms –In applied settings (e.g. eyewitness testimony), unacceptable even if d’ increases too

8. IMPROVING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY The Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, ’92) - Recreate original context - Retrieve partial information - Vary the perspective - Use mental imagery - Encourage active role in EW - Keep focus on relevant dimensions - Develop rapport, reduce anxiety Number of crime-relevant facts elicited by trained & untrained detectives BeforeAfter trained26.839.6 untrained23.824.2 (Fisher, Geiselman & Amador, 1989)