ABSTRACT
The importance of retrieval deficits as a source of memory loss in a variety of paradigms has been increasingly recognized in recent years. While the develop ment of retrieval oriented explanations of memory deficits represents an impor tant alternative to models based on storage failure or decay, a number of ques tions about the nature of retrieval processes remain to be answered. In attempting to explore these questions, we have followed others in viewing retrieval as a general process that encompasses aspects of training as well as testing, rather than a mechanism simply activated during a retention test (Miller & Springer, 1973; Spear, 1973, 1978; Tulving, 1974). Retrieval then is intimately related to the conditions under which information was acquired. The incidental background stimuli, or contextual cues, that are present at training but not specifically related to the contingencies of the task constitute an important component of the acquisi tion conditions. Internal states as well as exteroceptive stimuli can be sources of contextual cues. Although contextual cues are not essential to original learning, they are considered to be potent modulators of retention. A frequent observation is that performance on a retention test is impaired by changes in contextual cues (Spear, 1978). The common interpretation of this effect is that changes in stimulus contexts between training and testing result in retrieval failure. Al though this notion has permeated our own thinking about memory, we present later some considerations that appear troublesome to the general principle.
