Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 309–314 | Cite as

Context attributes in memory are bound to item information, but not to one another

  • Jeffrey J. Starns
  • Jason L. Hicks
Brief Reports


In four experiments, we compared binding between item and context information with binding between different types of context information. Participants studied line drawings of common objects that appeared in both different colors and different locations. We explored the effects of reinstating one type of information on recognition memory for another type, and we also tested the participants’ ability to discriminate intact from rearranged pairings of two types of information. Results showed that different contextual dimensions (i.e., color and location) were bound to item information (i.e., object information), but not to each other.


Recognition Test Recognition Performance Item Information Context Attribute Associative Recognition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chalfonte, B. L., & Johnson, M. K. (1996). Feature memory and binding in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 24, 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ferguson, S. A., Hashtroudi, S., & Johnson, M. K. (1992). Age differences in using source relevant cues. Psychology & Aging, 7, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jones, G. V. (1976). A fragmentation hypothesis of memory: Cued recall of pictures and of sequential position. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Meiser, T., & Bröder, A. (2002). Memory for multidimensional source information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 116–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Smith, S. M., Glenberg, A., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Environmental context and human memory. Memory & Cognition, 6, 342–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Starns, J. J., & Hicks, J. L. (2005). Source dimensions are retrieved independently in multidimensional monitoring tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1213–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Vogt, V., & Bröder, A. (2007). Independent retrieval of source dimensions: An extension of results by Starns and Hicks (2005) and a comment on the ACSIM measure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge

Personalised recommendations