Hofstra University Cognitive Psychology research seminar (Psy 190) - Erica Starr - Dec. '12 Final PowerPoint Presentation based on a research paper written for the course

1. The Effect of Presence and
Type of Encoding Cue on
Memory
By: Erica Starr

2. Abstract
O Two experiments conducted to provide continued
evidence for the encoding specificity principle and the
levels of processing theory as they relate to memory.
O Whether or not the presence of cues during the encoding
process would affect recall for target words, and if
so, which types of encoding cues would provide the
greatest performance on subsequent retrieval tests.
O Experiment 1: Encoding specificity + cued recall
O Experiment 2: Levels of processing + recognition

3. Important Definitions
O Encoding specificity refers to the idea that successful recall
of a previous event depends on the interaction between
encoding and retrieval cues.
O The levels of processing theory suggests that information is
remembered as a function of how deeply it is processed.
Thus, information processed using semantic processing
tends to lead to deeper processing than rhyme processing.

4. Previous Research
O Common conditions used to test encoding specificity:
O Rhyme-matched condition
O Semantic-matched condition
O Rhyme-semantic mismatched condition
O Semantic-rhyme mismatched condition

5. O Performance was best when encoding conditions matched
retrieval conditions, and was also better for the semantic
matched condition compared to the rhyme matched
condition.
O For individuals who make great use of the relationship
between the encoding and retrieval cues, mismatched
conditions are particularly harmful to recall performance.
O However, the encoding specificity principle is often
misrepresented to suggest that an increase in the
encoding-retrieval match always leads to an increase in
recall or recognition performance…

6. Memory as Discrimination
O Retrieval is not just about picking the correct target, but
also about rejecting targets that are incorrect.
O Poirier, Nairne, Morin, Zimmermann, Koutmeridou, &
Fowler (2012) challenged the encoding-retrieval match
principle
O Increasing the encoding-retrieval match principle can
actually lead to no change, an increase, or a decrease
in retrieval performance.

7. Cue Overload Hypothesis
O As the number of individual items in memory associated
with a specific cue increases, the effectiveness of that cue
decreases.
O The cue overload hypothesis is consistent with a belief
that being provided with too many cues can serve as a
source of interference for memory.
O This suggests that what determines the probability that a
target word will be recalled is the degree to which a single
cue is uniquely associated with the target word (Poirier et
al., 2012).

8. Learning to Learn
O Can learners make adaptive and qualitative changes in the
way they learn material after experiencing the demands of
a subsequent test given in a specific format (Finley &
Benjamin, 2011)?
O The test-expectancy paradigm compares performance on a
particular test format by participants led to expect that test
format versus the performance of individuals led to expect
a different format (Finley & Benjamin, 2011). Their study
used word pairs and both cued and free recall tests.
O What about more realistic test formats?

9. Reading Span Tasks
O Some examples of stimuli from Loaiza et al.’s (2011) task
include:
O The brother of one of your parents is an UNCLE.
O A word made up of five letters is UNCLE.
O The brother of one of your parents is a LETTER.
O Deeper levels of processing led to better immediate recall
performance than shallow processing for this task, as well
as led to better performance on a delayed recall test.

10. Reversal of the Levels of
Processing Effect
O On study trials, participants saw a question which related
to either a semantic or rhyming encoding process before
hearing a word.
O They responded yes or no to the question.
O They received either the standard recognition test or a
rhyme recognition test, which involved deciding if the test
word rhymed with a word presented during study.
O Rhyme recognition was better for the phonological than
semantic condition, at least for yes items.
O Recollection depends on the nature of the retrieval task.

11. Aims of the Current Research
O Replicate results that show support for both the theories of
encoding specificity and levels of processing.
O Experiment 1  Matched and mismatched encoding and
retrieval conditions
O Matched Better recall on cued recall test
O Experiment 2  Different levels of encoding tasks
O Semantic  Better recognition on recognition test

12. Experiment 1
O Purpose: To determine whether one’s ability to recall a
target word is affected by the presence of a cue at
encoding, and if so, how performance is affected when the
cue presented at encoding matches or does not match the
cue present at retrieval.
O Two phases, Three Cuing Conditions No Cue, Cue A,
Cue B
O Responses recorded demonstrated the percentage of times
that the target words were recalled correctly for the three
cue conditions.

13. Predictions
O Participants would be more accurate in recalling the target
words when the cue at retrieval matched the cue at
encoding than when there was a mismatch.
O In relation to the encoding specificity principle, the
conditions of No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue and
Encoding Cue-Same Retrieval Cue should warrant equal
recall performance.
O However, without the context of a meaningful cue, it was
predicted that the No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue
condition would elicit suboptimal performance compared
to that of the Encoding Cue –Same Retrieval cue
condition.

14. Method
O Participants  Eighteen undergraduate college students
enrolled in Dr. Weingartner’s Cognitive Psychology
Seminar at Hofstra University.
O Materials & Design  Fully within participants
O Loosely based on Thomson and Tulving’s 1970 study
O Participants were given written instructions regarding both
phases of the experiment prior to the first trial, and the
entire experiment took approximately 30 minutes to
complete.

15. Phase 1
O Participants saw a list of 45 word pairs
O Each pair shown on the computer screen for 3 seconds
O Word pairs appeared like cue-TARGET
O No Cue/Cue A/Cue B + TARGET WORD
O The designations of Cue A and Cue B were only used to
indicate whether participants would see the same cue at
encoding as at retrieval. There were no systematic
differences between Cue A and Cue B.

16. Phase 2
O 45 trials
O Participants were asked to produce the target word by
filling in missing letters when shown either No Cue, Cue
A, or Cue B.
O Participants responded using library classroom computers
using the Wadsworth Coglab Online Laboratory 2.0
website.

17. Procedure
O In Phase 1, participants started a trial by pressing the
space bar.
O They then saw a list of 45 word pairs, each for three
seconds.
O Ex: cup-DESK or ????-DESK
O No additional responses were required in Phase 1.

18. Phase 2 Responses
O Participants were asked to recall the words that were
shown in uppercase in Phase 1.
O Sometimes a cue was given, in which participants either
saw Cue A or Cue B. Sometimes no cue was given.
O This could either match or not match the cue given at
encoding.
O If participants received a cue, it appeared on the computer
screen as cup-D—K.

19. O Participants used the keyboard to type in the two missing
letters that would complete the target word.
O If they could not remember the target, they were
instructed to type in any two letters.
O If no cue was given, the pair would appear something like
????-D—K, and participants still attempted to fill in the
missing letters.
O After recording a response, participants pressed the space
bar until they advanced through all 45 trials in Phase 2.

20. Results
O A 3 by 3 within-participants ANOVA
with an alpha level of .05 was used to
analyze the effect of the presence of
cues as well as the effect of matched
and unmatched encoding and retrieval
cue conditions on recall.

22. O Retrieval cue did not have a main effect on mean recall, F
(2, 34) = 0.04, p > .05.
O The results did reveal a main effect of encoding cue, F
(2, 34) = 80.69, p < .05, such that the marginal means for
the No Encoding Cue, Encoding Cue A, and Encoding
Cue B conditions were M = 29.72, M = 67.41, and M =
70.93 respectively.
O This main effect was qualified by a significant interaction
between encoding cue and retrieval cue, F (4, 68) =
5.94, p < .05, and a Bonferroni adjustment was completed
prior to performing all t-tests, for which the alpha level
used was .01.

23. O Recall performance for the matched condition of Encoding Cue
A-Retrieval Cue A was significantly greater than that of the
Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue B condition, t (17) = 3.56, p <
.01.
O Recall performance for the matched condition of Encoding Cue
B-Retrieval Cue B was also significantly greater than that of
the Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue A condition, t (17) = 3.22, p
< .01.
O Mean percent recall for the conditions of Encoding Cue A-
Retrieval Cue A and Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B was not
statistically different, t (17) = -0.45, p > .01.
O There were also no statistical differences between mean percent
recall for the Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue A condition
compared to that of the Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue B
condition, t (17) = 1.10, p > .01.

24. O In addition, mean recall performance for the
No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue condition
was significantly lower than that for the
Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A condition, t
(17) = -7.58, p < .01.

25. Discussion
O Prediction 1 stated that percent recall would be higher
when a cue at retrieval matched a cue at encoding than
when the cues did not match.
O As expected, for conditions Encoding Cue A-Retrieval
Cue A and Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B, there were
no significant differences between the groups, as both
these conditions matched encoding cue to retrieval cue.
O There were also no significant differences between the
groups who were oppositely mismatched.

26. O Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A > Encoding Cue A-
Retrieval Cue B supporting the encoding specificity
principle
O Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B > Encoding Cue B and
Retrieval Cue A
O Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A = Encoding Cue B-
Retrieval Cue B
O Encoding Cue A-Retrieval A > No Encoding Cue-No
Retrieval Cue

27. Experiment 2
O Purpose: Determine whether or not the type of encoding
cue matters as it relates to how well words can be recalled
at retrieval.
O Experiment 2 traded the presence of matched conditions at
encoding and retrieval for the presence of supposedly
stronger and weaker encoding cues preceding this
recognition test.
O Experiment 2 was also presented in two phases.

28. O Phase 1  Participants saw a target word and a judgment
task which represented the level of processing to be used
to encode the target word.
O The shallow encoding task  comparing a consonant-
vowel word structure to the target word.
O The medium encoding task  determined if the cue
rhymed with the target word
O The deep encoding task  determined if the cue was
similar in meaning to the target word.

29. O Phase 2  Participants saw a list of words, half of which
had appeared in Phase 1.
O Their task was to determine if the word had appeared in
Phase 1 or not.
O Manipulated the level of processing induced by the
orienting task in Phase 1 to include shallow, medium, and
deep encoding processes
O Experiment 2 sought to measure the proportion of times
target words were correctly recognized as being in Phase 1
for each encoding condition.

30. Prediction
O In support of Loaiza et al.’s (2011) study, which found
evidence for the levels of processing theory using a
reading span task:
O It was predicted that participants would correctly
recognize a greater number of target words which were
learned using a deep encoding process compared to those
learned using a shallow encoding process.

31. Method
O Participants  Twenty undergraduate college students
enrolled in Dr. Weingartner’s Cognitive Psychology
Seminar at Hofstra University. One participant’s data was
not included in the analysis of this experiment due to
experimenter error.
O Materials & Design Modeled after Craik and Tulving’s
1975 study
O Employed a fully within-participants design and an
incidental learning task to test recognition of target words.

32. O Two phases completed one after the other.
O Participants were given written instructions regarding both
phases before the start of the experiment.
O Phase 1  60 judgments made
O The judgments were split into blocks of 20 incidental
learning tasks in order to cover the three levels of
processing. Judgments involved letters, rhyming
words, and synonyms.

33. O Phase 2  120 judgments made regarding whether words
shown had appeared in Phase 1.
O Half of the 120 words shown did appear in Phase 1; the
other half were new words.
O Participants knew this would occur as per their given
instructions, but new and old words appeared in random
order.
O The entire experiment took participants approximately 30
minutes to complete.

34. Procedure
O Participants recorded their own responses on library
classroom computers using the Wadsworth Coglab Online
Laboratory 2.0 website.
O In Phase 1, participants pressed the space bar to start each
trial. The [ z ] key was pressed to indicate a NO
response, and the [ / ] key was pressed to indicate a YES
response.
O For each trial in Phase 1, two words (or a word and a word
structure) appeared on the screen side by side, separated
by a word indicating one of three tasks that would be used
to compare the words.

35. O Phase 1:
O dog LETTERS cvc  YES (/)
O dog RHYME boat  NO (z)
O angry SYNONYM mad  YES (/)
O Phase 2:
O Was this word in Phase 1?
O YES (/) or NO (z)
O Participants pressed the space bar to advance through all
120 trials of Phase 2.

36. Results
O The results from a one-way, within participants ANOVA
indicated that the level of processing used at encoding
influenced participants’ mean accuracy on the recognition test,
F (2, 36) = 16.34, p < .05.
O Mean correct recognition for those words that appeared in the
rhyming task of Phase 1 was 9% greater than the correct
number of words recognized from the letters task, t (18) = -2.31,
p < .05.
O Mean correct recognition for those words which appeared in the
synonym task was 16% greater than those words recognized
from the rhyming task, t (18) = -3.73, p < .05.
O Mean correct recognition was also 25% higher for words that
appeared in the synonym task compared to the letters task, t (18)
= -4.88, p < .05.

38. Discussion
O By manipulating the level of processing induced by the
orienting task in Phase 1 to include shallow, medium, and deep
encoding processes, Experiment 2 measured how often target
words were correctly recognized as being in Phase 1.
O The type of encoding cue used does matter for retrieval in that
deep, semantic cues used at encoding produced much greater
recognition than shallow or medium level processing cues.
O As predicted, a significantly greater number of words shown in
Phase 2 were recognized that had been encoded using the
synonym task in Phase 1 than those that had been encoded with
either the rhyming task or the letters task.

39. General Discussion
O The present experiments were conducted in response to
equivocal research concerning the encoding specificity
principle and the levels of processing theory.
O Overall, the aim of the current studies was to provide
evidence in support of the encoding specificity principle
using a simple matched/non-matched encoding and
retrieval condition paradigm.
O In Experiment 1, when encoding cues were
presented, recall was better than when no encoding cue
was presented, regardless of whether the condition
included no encoding cue and no retrieval cue (a matched
condition).

40. O Further support was also found for the levels of
processing theory examined in Experiment 2, such that
cues encoded during an incidental learning task by
shallow, medium, or deep processing affected recall for a
target word during a recognition test.
O Deep, semantic cues used at encoding produce much
greater recall than shallow or medium level processing
cues, such as consonant/vowel word structures and
rhyming words.

41. Limitations
O Ideally, participants would have been naïve to the fact that
they would be receiving a memory test following the
study period at the end of both Experiment 1 and
Experiment 2 and that the judgment tasks in Experiment 2
were designed to control for using different levels of
processing.
O Mulligan & Picklesimer (2011) demonstrated a consistent
reversal of the levels of processing effect in favor of non-
semantic encoding processes such as rhyming. This
implication suggests that the results found presently may
have been due to a bias toward promoting enhanced
recognition for semantically encoded words.

42. Future Research
O Move in the direction of determining the effects of the
encoding specificity principle and the levels of processing
theory on performance on realistic tests.
O Use different types of study strategies related to learning
the same information that will be tested by means of a
short answer test given on paper.
O The study strategies will range from passive reading of
material in order to learn it, to actively teaching the
material to someone else who is not familiar with it.
Intermediate strategies will include listening to
information related to the topic and discussing the topic
with other people who are somewhat familiar with it.

43. Design
O Between participants design
O Four possible study conditions:
Read, Listen, Discuss, or Teach
O Study sessions for each condition will last 45 minutes.
O Immediately after studying, participants will be presented
with short answer questions related to the original
information they were presented with.
O They will have 45 minutes to complete the test.

44. O Following the test, participants will not receive feedback, but
will instead complete a distractor task involving simple math
problems.
O Participants will return for a second session one week later
consisting of another short answer test in order to assess
delayed recall for the studied information.
O The procedure will be the same as the first test session, minus
the distractor task.
O Performance on both the immediate test and the delayed test for
each of the four conditions will be assessed based on accuracy
and average time spent answering each question, which will be
determined by participants signaling that they have recorded
their final answer for the question.

45. Predictions
O It is predicted that accuracy of test answers will be highest
for the Teach condition, and that the average time spent
answering the questions will be the lowest of all the
conditions because the study process is very active.
O The lowest accuracy and longest answer times should
occur with the Read condition, which employs a passive
study strategy.
O The Discuss group should perform almost as accurately as
the Teach condition, but it is predicted they will take
longer to answer the questions due to interference from
having heard others give their ideas about the study topic.

47. O **All participants will read the story once prior to engaging
in the study period.
O Read Condition: Participants will reread the above story
during the allotted study period, as many times as time allows.
O Listen Condition: Participants will listen to a recording of the
story for the remainder of the study period, as many times as
time allows.
O Discuss Condition: Participants will be placed in groups of
three to discuss the contents of the story. They can refer to the
written piece as necessary for the duration of the study period.
O Teach Condition: Participants will teach the story material to
one other person and attempt to hold a discussion after teaching
for the allotted study period. They can refer to the written piece
as necessary.

49. References
O Finley, J. R. & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding
strategy with experience: Evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 632-652.
O Gallo, D. A., Meadow, N. G., Johnson, E.L., & Foster, K. T. (2008). Deep levels of
processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection
task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 1095-1111.
O Jou, J. (2010). Can associative information be strategically separated from item
information in word-pair recognition? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 778-783.
O Loaiza, V. M., McCabe, D. P., Youngblood, J. L., Rose, N. S., & Myerson, J. (2011).
The influence of levels of processing on recall from working memory and delayed
recall tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 37(5), 1258-1263.
O Mulligan, N. W. & Picklesimer, M. (2012). Levels of processing and the cue-dependent
nature of recollection. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 79-92.
O Poirier, M, Nairne, J. S., Morin, C., Zimmerman, 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(1), 16-29.
O Rose, N. S., Myerson, J., Roediger III, H. L., & Hale, S. (2010). Similarities and
differences between working memory and long-term memory: Evidence from the
levels-of-processing span task. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 471-483.
O Unsworth, N., Brewer, G. A., & Spillers, G. J. (2011). Variation in working memory
capacity and episodic memory: Examining the importance of encoding specificity.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1113-1118.