The myth of the encoding-retrieval match

Memory

Volumn 10, Issue 5-6, 2002, Pages 389-395

  Nairne, James S ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CODING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; INFORMATION; MEMORY; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH;

CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0036757799     PISSN: 09658211     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09658210244000216     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Brown, S.C., & Craik, F.I.M. (2000). Encoding and retrieval of information. In E. Tulving & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 93-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Craik, F.I.M. (1999). Levels of encoding and retrieval. In B.H. Challis & B.M. Velichkovsky (Eds.), Stratification in cognition and consciousness (pp. 97-104). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
4. Crowder, R.G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
5. Earhard, M. (1967). Cued recall and free recall as a function of the number of items per cue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 257-263.
6. Estes, W.K. (1955). Statistical theory of spontaneous recovery and regression. Psychological Review, 62, 145-154.
7. Eysenck, M.W. (1979). Depth, elaboration, and distinctiveness. In L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 89-118). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
8. Fisher, R.P., & Craik, F.I.M. (1977). Interaction between encoding and retrieval operations in cued-recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 701-711.
9. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-67.
10. Goldstone, R.L. (1996). Alignment-based non-monotonicities in similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 988-1001.
11. Hintzman, D.L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
12. Jacoby, L.L., & Craik, F.I.M. (1979). Effects of elaboration of processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of initial context. In L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 1-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
13. Lockhart, R.S., & Craik, F.I.M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 87-112.
14. McGeoch, J.A. (1942). The psychology of human learning. New York: Longsman, Green.
15. 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.
16. Moscovitch, M., & Craik, F.I.M. (1976). Depth of processing, retrieval cues, and uniqueness of encoding as factors in recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 447-458.
17. Nairne, J.S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition, 18, 251-269.
18. Nairne, J.S. (2001). A functional analysis of primary memory. In H.L. Roediger, J.S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A.M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 282-296). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Nosofsky, R.M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.
20. Raaijmakers, J.G.W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1980). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 95, 93-134.
21. Roediger, H.L.III. (1973). Inhibition in recall from cueing with recall targets. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 644-657.
22. Roediger, H.L.III, & Guynn, M.J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E.L. Bjork & R.A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 197-236). New York: Academic Press.
23. Shepard, R.N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
24. Strong, E.K. Jr. (1912). The effect of length of series upon recognition memory. Psychological Review, 19, 447-462.
25. Thomson, D.M., & Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255-262.
26. Toth, J.P., & Hunt, R.R. (1999). Not one versus many, but zero versus any: Structure and function in the context of the multiple memory systems debate. In J.K. Foster & M. Jelicic (Eds.), Memory: Systems, process, or function? Debates in psychology (pp. 232-272). New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Tulving, E. (1979). Relation between encoding specificity and levels of processing. In L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 405-428). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Inc.
28. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Watkins, O.C., & Watkins, M.J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 442-452.