Encoding Specificity and Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory.¶
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding Specificity and Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352-373.
Cited by¶
7 citations across 7 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Associative Memory
- Tulving and Thomson (1973) made this precise with the encoding-specificity principle: a cue is effective to the extent that it overlaps in content with what was encoded.
This sourceStates the encoding-specificity principle: a retrieval cue is effective to the extent that it overlaps in content with what was encoded at storage. SUPPORTS marker 129.
- Tulving and Thomson (1973) made this precise with the encoding-specificity principle: a cue is effective to the extent that it overlaps in content with what was encoded.
- Encoding And Decoding
- In memory psychology, encoding strength at study determines retrieval success at test, and encoding-specificity says the decoder works best when its context matches the encoder's.
This sourceEstablishes encoding specificity — retrieval succeeds best when the decoding context matches the encoding context, the shared-scheme prerequisite for memory.
- In memory psychology, encoding strength at study determines retrieval success at test, and encoding-specificity says the decoder works best when its context matches the encoder's.
- Encoding Specificity
- This is sharper than generic content-addressable memory, which says retrieval is cue-driven without specifying which features bind the cue, and sharper than priming, which says recent activation lowers a threshold without specifying the encoding-context dependency.
This sourceOriginating paper of the encoding specificity principle, including the cued-recall demonstration that a weak co-encoded cue can outperform a strong non-co-encoded semantic associate.
- This is sharper than generic content-addressable memory, which says retrieval is cue-driven without specifying which features bind the cue, and sharper than priming, which says recent activation lowers a threshold without specifying the encoding-context dependency.
- Verifier-Prover Asymmetry
- Hiring exploits the gap by asking candidates for cheap-to-verify work products; puzzle composition deliberately engineers a composer-effort that exceeds solver-effort, which in turn exceeds checker-effort; cognitive psychology finds recognition qualitatively easier than free recall.
This sourceRecognition is qualitatively easier than free recall, the cognitive instance of the verify-versus-find gap.
- Hiring exploits the gap by asking candidates for cheap-to-verify work products; puzzle composition deliberately engineers a composer-effort that exceeds solver-effort, which in turn exceeds checker-effort; cognitive psychology finds recognition qualitatively easier than free recall.
Domain-specific¶
- Cognitive interview
- Transfer-Appropriate Processing
- Not encoding specificity in full generality. Encoding specificity concerns the relation between the encoded trace and effective retrieval information, including contextual and cue features.
This sourceFoundational statement of encoding specificity and the dependence of effective retrieval information on specific encoding operations.
- Not encoding specificity in full generality. Encoding specificity concerns the relation between the encoded trace and effective retrieval information, including contextual and cue features.
Mechanisms¶
- Mnemonic Cue Pairing
- The discipline that guards against this is the encoding specificity principle
This sourceExplains that a retrieval cue is effective to the extent that it overlaps with information encoded at learning.
- The discipline that guards against this is the encoding specificity principle
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. Neither this nor any other of the 7 citations of this work carries a 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:ec4ce2f3cfb8 · see in the full table