However, if competitors for the target word NAIL included TOE and HAND, the effectiveness of the cue part of the human body would probably be diminished. This illustrates the “match,” in the sense that the tool meaning of the word NAIL was probably not encoded in the context of FINGER. Thus, if a target word NAIL is encoded and stored in the context of the word FINGER, a subsequent retrieval cue such as tool will be ineffective, but a cue such as part of the human body will probably be quite effective. These ideas are similar to theoretical accounts of memory processes that posit a critical role for the discriminability of a memory record relative to all possible traces at the retrieval stage (e.g., Norman & Bobrow, 1979). It is not matching features from the encoding and retrieval conditions per se that are needed, but the presence of features that help discriminate the correct target from incorrect competitors-that is, the diagnostic value of the retrieval cue.

In fact, he argued that knowing the status of the encoding–retrieval match by itself predicts next to nothing about subsequent retention. However, Nairne ( 2002) argued that similarity between the encoding and retrieval conditions (the encoding–retrieval match) is not all that matters in determining the accuracy of memory performance. The results supported Nairne’s ( Memory, 10, 389–395, 2002) assertion that the diagnostic value of retrieval cues is a better predictor of memory performance than the absolute encoding–retrieval match. The diagnostic value of the cue was varied by manipulating the extent to which the cues subsumed other memorised words and the level of the encoding–retrieval match. Three experiments were carried out in which participants memorised word pairs and tried to recall target words when given retrieval cues. What matters instead is the relative diagnostic value of the match, and not the absolute match. However, Nairne ( Memory, 10, 389–395, 2002) proposed that this idea about trace–cue compatibility being the driving force behind memory retention is a myth, because one cannot make unequivocal predictions about performance by appealing to the encoding–retrieval match.

The view that successful memory performance depends importantly on the extent to which there is a match between the encoding and retrieval conditions is commonplace in memory research.

Examples of encoding in psychology