Resolution now! reply to Riccio, Richardson, and Ebner (1999)

Psychological Bulletin

Volumn 125, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 190-192

  Bouton, Mark E ^b   Nelson, James B ^c   Rosas, Juan M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033467103     PISSN: 00332909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.190     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80-99.
2. Bouton, M. E., Nelson, J. B., & Rosas, J. M. (1999). Stimulus generalization, context change, and forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 171-186.
3. Eich, E. (1985). Context, memory, and integrated item/context imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 764-770.
4. Gleitman, H., & Holmes, P. (1967). Retention of incompletely learned CER in rats. Psychonomic Science, 7, 19-20.
5. Hall, G., & Honey, R. C. (1990). Context-specific conditioning in the conditioned-emotional-response procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 271-278.
6. Hendersen, R. W. (1985). Fearful memories: The motivational significance of forgetting. In F. R. Brush & J. B. Overmier (Eds.), Affect, conditioning, and cognition: Essays on the determinants of behavior (pp. 43-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Nelson, J. B. (1997). The context specificity of second learned information. Doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont, Burlington.
8. Riccio, D. C., & Concannon, J. T. (1981). ACTH and the reminder phenomena. In J. Martinez, R. A. Jensen, R. B. Messing, H. Rigter, & J. L. McGaugh (Eds.), Endogenous peptides and learning and memory processes (pp. 117-142). New York: Academic Press.
9. Riccio, D. C., & Richardson, R. (1984). The status of memory following experimentally induced amnesia: Gone but not forgotten. Physiological Psychology, 12, 152-165.
10. Riccio, D. C., Richardson, R., & Ebner, D. L. (1984). Memory retrieval deficits based upon altered contextual cues: A paradox. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 152-165.
11. Riccio, D. C., Richardson, R., & Ebner, D. L. (1999). The contextual change paradox is still unresolved: Comment on Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 187-189.
12. Rosas, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (1997). Additivity of the effects of retention interval and context change on latent inhibition: Toward resolution of the context forgetting paradox. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 283-294.
13. Rosas, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (1998). Context change and retention interval can have additive, rather than interactive, effects after taste aversion extinction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 79-83.
14. 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). New York: Wiley.
15. Zhou, Y. L., & Riccio, D. C. (1994). Pretest cuing can alleviate the forgetting of contextual stimulus attributes. Learning and Motivation, 25, 233-244.