Search

Most conceptions of episodic memory hold that reinstatement of encoding operations is essential for retrieval success, but the specific mechanisms of retrieval reinstatement are not well understood. In three experiments, we used saccadic eye movements as a window for examining reinstatement in scene recognition. In Experiment 1, participants viewed complex scenes, while number of study fixations was controlled by using a gaze-contingent paradigm. In Experiment 2, effects of stimulus saliency were minimized by directing participants' eye movements during study. At test, participants made remember/know judgments for each recognized stimulus scene. Both experiments showed that remember responses were associated with more consistent study-test fixations than false rejections (Experiments 1 and 2) and know responses (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, we examined the causal role of gaze consistency on retrieval by manipulating participants' expectations during recognition. After studying name and scene pairs, each test scene was preceded by the same or different name as during study. Participants made more consistent eye movements following a matching, rather than mismatching, scene name. Taken together, these findings suggest that explicit recollection is a function of perceptual reconstruction and that event memory influences gaze control in this active reconstruction process.

In two experiments, metamemorial differences between prospective and retrospective memory performance were examined. Participants in Experiment 1 were recruited through newspaper advertisements and comprised middle-aged women who experienced exceptional problems in prospective remembering. Experiment 2 involved self-reporters and nonreporters of retrospective memory problems, who were selected from a large population-based sample of middle-aged adults. In both experiments, memory performance was assessed by using a variety of tasks, including five retrospective memory tasks and three prospective memory tasks that varied in level of realism and retrieval support. In both experiments, there were selective differences in memory performance, so that participants who experienced (retrospective or prospective) memory problems showed impaired performance in prospective, but not in retrospective, memory tasks. These findings suggest that memory for future intentions provides a more sensitive task criterion than does memory for past events for assessing individual differences in self-reports of episodic memory problems. Task-specific differences in reliance on frontally mediated executive processes might underlie these differences.