Memory retrieval, including recall and recognition, is the process of remembering information stored in long-term memory. Some theorists suggests that there are three stores of memory: sensory memory, long-term memory (LTM), and short-term memory (STM). Only data that is processed through STM and encoded into LTM can later be retrieved. Overall, the mechanisms of memory are not completely understood. However, there are many theories concerning memory retrieval.

There are two main types of memory retrieval: recall and recognition. In recall, the information must be retrieved from memories. In recognition, the presentation of a familiar outside stimulus provides a cue that the information has been seen before. A cue might be an object or a scene—any stimulus that reminds a person of something related. Recall may be assisted when retrieval cues are presented that enable the subject to quickly access the information in memory.

Patterns of Memory Retrieval

Memory retrieval can occur in several different ways, and there are many things that can affect it, such as how long it has been since the last time you retrieved the memory, what other information you have learned in the meantime, and many other variables. For example, the spacing effect allows a person to remember something they have studied many times spaced over a longer period of time rather than all at once. The testing effect shows that practicing retrieval of a concept can increase the chance of remembering it.

Some effects relate specifically to certain types of recall. There are three main types of recall studied in psychology: serial recall, free recall, and cued recall.

Serial Recall

People tend to recall items or events in the order in which they occurred. This is called serial recall and can be used to help cue memories. By thinking about a string of events or even words, it is possible to use a previous memory to cue the next item in the series. Serial recall helps a person to remember the order of events in his or her life. These memories appear to exist on a continuum on which more recent events are more easily recalled.

When recalling serial items presented as a list (a common occurrence in memory studies), two effects tend to surface: the primacy effect and the recency effect. The primacy effect occurs when a participant remembers words from the beginning of a list better than the words from the middle or end. The theory behind this is that the participant has had more time to rehearse these words in working memory. The recency effect occurs when a participant remembers words from the end of a list more easily, possibly since they are still available in short-term memory.

Serial Position Curve

Variations in the ability to retrieve information are also seen in the serial position curve. When we give people a list of words one at a time (e.g., on flashcards) and then ask them to recall them, the results look something like those in Figure 14 “The Serial Position Curve”. People are able to retrieve more words that were presented to them at the beginning and the end of the list than they are words that were presented in the middle of the list. This pattern, known as the serial position curve, is caused by two retrieval phenomenon: The primacy effect refers to a tendency to better remember stimuli that are presented early in a list. The recency effect refers to the tendency to better remember stimuli that are presented later in a list.

There are a number of explanations for primacy and recency effects, but one of them is in terms of the effects of rehearsal on short-term and long-term memory (Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009). Because we can keep the last words that we learned in the presented list in short-term memory by rehearsing them before the memory test begins, they are relatively easily remembered. So the recency effect can be explained in terms of maintenance rehearsal in short-term memory. And the primacy effect may also be due to rehearsal—when we hear the first word in the list we start to rehearse it, making it more likely that it will be moved from short-term to long-term memory. And the same is true for the other words that come early in the list. But for the words in the middle of the list, this rehearsal becomes much harder, making them less likely to be moved to LTM.

Recency Effects and Primacy Effects

People tend to recall items or events in the order in which they occurred. This is called serial recall and can be used to help cue memories. By thinking about a string of events or even words, it is possible to use a previous memory to cue the next item in the series. Serial recall helps a person to remember the order of events in his or her life. These memories appear to exist on a continuum on which more recent events are more easily recalled.

When recalling serial items presented as a list (a common occurrence in memory studies), two effects tend to surface: the primacy effect and the recency effect. The primacy effect occurs when a participant remembers words from the beginning of a list better than the words from the middle or end. The theory behind this is that the participant has had more time to rehearse these words in working memory. The recency effect occurs when a participant remembers words from the end of a list more easily, possibly since they are still available in short-term memory.

Free Recall

Free recall occurs when a person must recall many items but can recall them in any order. It is another commonly studied paradigm in memory research. Like serial recall, free recall is subject to the primacy and recency effects.

Cued Recall

Cues can facilitate recovery of memories that have been “lost.” In research, a process called cued recall is used to study these effects. Cued recall occurs when a person is given a list to remember and is then given cues during the testing phase to aid in the retrieval of memories. The stronger the link between the cue and the testing word, the better the participant will recall the words.

Encoding Specificity

The general principle that underlies the effectiveness of retrieval cues is the encoding specificity principle (Tulving & Thomson, 1973): when people encode information, they do so in specific ways. For example, take the song on the radio: perhaps you heard it while you were at a terrific party, having a great, philosophical conversation with a friend. Thus, the song became part of that whole complex experience. Years later, even though you haven’t thought about that party in ages, when you hear the song on the radio, the whole experience rushes back to you. In general, the encoding specificity principle states that, to the extent a retrieval cue (the song) matches or overlaps the memory trace of an experience (the party, the conversation), it will be effective in evoking the memory. A classic experiment on the encoding specificity principle had participants memorize a set of words in a unique setting. Later, the participants were tested on the word sets, either in the same location they learned the words or a different one. As a result of encoding specificity, the students who took the test in the same place they learned the words were actually able to recall more words (Godden & Baddeley, 1975) than the students who took the test in a new setting. In this instance, the physical context itself provided cues for retrieval. This is why it’s good to study for midterms and finals in the same room you’ll be taking them in.

One caution with this principle, though, is that, for the cue to work, it can’t match too many other experiences (Nairne, 2002; Watkins, 1975). Consider a lab experiment. Suppose you study 100 items; 99 are words, and one is a picture—of a penguin, item 50 in the list. Afterwards, the cue “recall the picture” would evoke “penguin” perfectly. No one would miss it. However, if the word “penguin” were placed in the same spot among the other 99 words, its memorability would be exceptionally worse. This outcome shows the power of distinctiveness that we discussed in the section on encoding: one picture is perfectly recalled from among 99 words because it stands out. Now consider what would happen if the experiment were repeated, but there were 25 pictures distributed within the 100-item list. Although the picture of the penguin would still be there, the probability that the cue “recall the picture” (at item 50) would be useful for the penguin would drop correspondingly. Watkins (1975) referred to this outcome as demonstrating the cue overload principle. That is, to be effective, a retrieval cue cannot be overloaded with too many memories. For the cue “recall the picture” to be effective, it should only match one item in the target set (as in the one-picture, 99-word case).

We are more likely to be able to retrieve items from memory when conditions at retrieval are similar to the conditions under which we encoded them. Context-dependent learning refers to an increase in retrieval when the external situation in which information is learned matches the situation in which it is remembered. Godden and Baddeley (1975) conducted a study to test this idea using scuba divers. They asked the divers to learn a list of words either when they were on land or when they were underwater. Then they tested the divers on their memory, either in the same or the opposite situation. As you can see in Figure 15, the divers’ memory was better when they were tested in the same context in which they had learned the words than when they were tested in the other context.

You can see that context-dependent learning might also be important in improving your memory. For instance, you might want to try to study for an exam in a situation that is similar to the one in which you are going to take the exam. Whereas context-dependent learning refers to a match in the external situation between learning and remembering, state-dependent learning refers to superior retrieval of memories when the individual is in the same physiological or psychological state as during encoding. Research has found, for instance, that animals that learn a maze while under the influence of one drug tend to remember their learning better when they are tested under the influence of the same drug than when they are tested without the drug (Jackson, Koek, & Colpaert, 1992). And research with humans finds that bilinguals remember better when tested in the same language in which they learned the material (Marian & Kaushanskaya, 2007). Mood states may also produce state-dependent learning. People who learn information when they are in a bad (rather than a good) mood find it easier to recall these memories when they are tested while they are in a bad mood, and vice versa. It is easier to recall unpleasant memories than pleasant ones when we’re sad, and easier to recall pleasant memories than unpleasant ones when we’re happy (Bower, 1981; Eich, 2008).