The Myth of the Encoding–Retrieval Match¶
Nairne, J. S. (2002). The Myth of the Encoding–Retrieval Match. Memory, 10(5–6), 5-6.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Transfer-Appropriate Processing
- Retrieval cues must also discriminate the target from competitors; greater match can help, do nothing, or hurt when it also increases cue overload.
This sourceCritical review arguing that match alone is not a monotonic causal predictor and that retrieval-cue diagnosticity must be considered.
- Retrieval cues must also discriminate the target from competitors; greater match can help, do nothing, or hurt when it also increases cue overload.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b202c2ec9a60 · see in the full table