Direct retrieval as a theory of involuntary autobiographical memories: evaluation and future directions.

I evaluate the conception of direct retrieval as originally formulated in the Self-Memory System model (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce [2000]. The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261). In the hierarchical memory organisation proposed in the Self-Memory System model, direct retrieval is described as a bottom-up associative process. While its theoretical role within this model is clear, systematic empirical examination of direct retrieval, viewed as a natural and observable phenomenon, has been hampered by inconsistent operationalisations. Here, I suggest that direct retrieval should be treated as a theoretical concept, aiming at explaining the phenomenon of involuntary (spontaneously arising) autobiographical memories. I evaluate predictions derived from the concept of direct retrieval against findings on involuntary autobiographical memories obtained over the past 25 years. Most of these predictions are consistent with the evidence, notably, the enhanced episodic specificity and constructive nature of involuntary autobiographical memories. However, the theory also has critical limitations. It did not predict the frequent occurrence of involuntary recollections in daily life, exceeding the prevalence of voluntary memories. Additionally, it overlooked the early emergence of spontaneously arising event memories in ontogenesis and their presence in other species, such as great apes. Future advancements of the Self-Memory System model should integrate evolutionary perspectives to address these limitations.

Could direct and generative retrieval be two flips of the same coin? A dual-task paradigm study.

Autobiographical memories are thought to be retrieved using two possible ways: a generative one, which is effortful and follows a general-to-specific pathway, and a direct one, which is automatic and relatively effortless. These two retrieve processes are known to differ on the quantitative side (especially considering retrieval times), from a qualitative point of view; however, evidence is missing. Here, we aimed to disentangle this question by taking advantage of a dual-task paradigm in which the different tasks tax different executive functions. Participants were asked to perform an autobiographical memory task under three different conditions: no cognitive load, non-visual cognitive load and visual cognitive load. On the quantitative side, results replicated previous findings with generative processes being slower compared with direct ones. Conversely, on the qualitative side, results indicated that the retrieval times of both direct and generative retrieval processes varied similarly according to the dual-task condition, thus supporting the idea that the same memory process could underlie both retrievals.

Elucidating the mental processes underlying the direct retrieval of autobiographical memories.

The literature on autobiographical memory retrieval has directed much attention to the concepts of direct retrieval (fast, automatic retrieval) and generative retrieval (slower, deliberative/strategic retrieval). Among the many findings reported on these phenomena, their relative prevalence has stood out as a central feature in many studies, with most studies reporting the frequency of direct retrieval as equal to or exceeding generative retrieval. In this study, we used the retrieve-aloud procedure (a method where participants verbalize their thoughts while retrieving) to delve more deeply into the nature of reports of ubiquitous direct retrieval. We hypothesized that much of the direct retrieval reported in literature is not bona fide direct retrieval (i.e., seemingly automatic retrieval), but is a combination of other retrieval processes, including generative-like retrieval processes. Our results supported this view, showing that less than one-half of all of the observed direct retrievals were bona fide direct retrieval, while the rest were a form of generative retrieval, or fell somewhere in between direct and generative retrieval. We argue that the results suggest that the prevalence of direct retrieval may be overestimated in the literature, and we further propose an alternative classification schema for direct retrievals.

Looking at remembering: Eye movements, pupil size, and autobiographical memory.

To examine the relationship between visual imagery and autobiographical memory, eye position and pupil size were recorded while participants first searched for memories and then reconstructed the retrieved memories (Experiment 1), or only searched for memories (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we observed that, although recollective experience was not associated with the number of fixations per minute, memories that took longer to retrieve were linked to increased pupil size. In Experiment 2, we observed that directly retrieved memories were recalled more quickly and were accompanied by smaller pupils than generatively retrieved memories. After correcting for response time, retrieval mode also produced an effect, showing that decreased pupil size is not simply due to directly retrieved memories being recalled more quickly. These findings provide compelling evidence that objective measures, such as pupil size, can be used alongside subjective measures, such as self-reports, to distinguish between directly retrieved and generatively retrieved memories.

Searching for the past: Exploring the dynamics of direct and generative autobiographical memory reconstruction among young and cognitively normal older adults.

Episodic autobiographical memories (EAMs) can come to mind through two retrieval routes, one direct (i.e., an EAM is retrieved almost instantaneously) and the other generative (i.e., by using autobiographical/general knowledge to cue an EAM). It is well established that normal cognitive aging is associated with a reduction in the retrieval of EAMs, but the contributions of direct or generative reconstruction to the age-related shift toward general memories remain unknown. Prior studies also have not clarified whether similar cognitive mechanisms facilitate the ability to successfully reconstruct EAMs and elaborate them in event-specific detail. To address these gaps in knowledge, young and older participants were asked to reconstruct EAMs using a "think-aloud" paradigm and then describe in detail a subset of retrieved memories. An adapted scoring procedure was implemented to categorize memories accessed during reconstruction, and the Autobiographical Interview (AI) scoring procedure was utilized for elaboration scoring. Results indicated that in comparison with young adults, older adults not only engaged in direct retrieval less often than young adults but they also more often ended generative retrieval at general events instead of EAMs. The ability to elaborate EAMs with internal details was positively associated with the ability to use generative retrieval to reconstruct EAMs in both young and older adults, but there was no relationship between internal detail elaboration and direct retrieval in either age group. Taken together, these results indicate age-related differences in direct and generative retrieval contribute to overgeneral autobiographical memory and they support a connection between generative retrieval and elaboration.

Direct and generative autobiographical memory retrieval: How different are they?

Theories of autobiographical memory have emphasised effortful generative retrieval, but recent research indicates that subjectively effortless direct retrieval is common. We compared the processes of direct and generative retrieval. Sixty-five participants retrieved 24 autobiographical memories across three cue types: concrete, emotional, and personal. We recorded retrieval latency, and participants judged direct versus generative retrieval and rated memory specificity, vividness, significance, rehearsal, and emotionality. Overall, direct retrieval was common, especially for personal cues. Directly retrieved memories were recalled faster, were less likely to be specific, and were rated more significant, rehearsed, and emotional than generatively retrieved memories. The speed of both direct and generative retrieval varied similarly according to cue type, suggesting they did not involve fundamentally different cognitive processes. These findings challenge theories that assume direct retrieval bypasses constructive processes. Instead we suggest that both direct and generative retrieval involve construction that is similarly affected by cue concreteness and relevance.

The effect of cue content on retrieval from autobiographical memory.

It has long been argued that personal memories are usually generated in an effortful search process in word-cueing studies. However, recent research (Uzer, Lee, & Brown, 2012) shows that direct retrieval of autobiographical memories, in response to word cues, is common. This invites the question of whether direct retrieval phenomenon is generalizable beyond the standard laboratory paradigm. Here we investigated prevalence of direct retrieval of autobiographical memories cued by specific and individuated cues versus generic cues. In Experiment 1, participants retrieved memories in response to cues from their own life (e.g., the names of friends) and generic words (e.g., chair). In Experiment 2, participants provided their personal cues two or three months prior to coming to the lab (min: 75days; max: 100days). In each experiment, RT was measured and participants reported whether memories were directly retrieved or generated on each trial. Results showed that personal cues elicited a high rate of direct retrieval. Personal cues were more likely to elicit direct retrieval than generic word cues, and as a consequence, participants responded faster, on average, to the former than to the latter. These results challenge the constructive view of autobiographical memory and suggest that autobiographical memories consist of pre-stored event representations, which are largely governed by associative mechanisms. These demonstrations offer theoretically interesting questions such as why are we not overwhelmed with directly retrieved memories cued by everyday familiar surroundings?

Does retrieval intentionality really matter? Similarities and differences between involuntary memories and directly and generatively retrieved voluntary memories.

Theories of autobiographical memory distinguish between involuntary and voluntary retrieval as a consequence of conscious intention (i.e., wanting to remember). Another distinction can be made between direct and generative retrieval, which reflects the effort involved (i.e., trying to remember). However, it is unclear how intention and effort interacts. For example, involuntary memories and directly retrieved memories have been used interchangeably in the literature to refer to the same phenomenon of effortless, non-strategic retrieval. More recent theoretical advances suggest that they are separate types of retrieval, one unintentional (involuntary), another intentional and effortless (direct voluntary retrieval), and a third intentional and effortful (generative voluntary retrieval). Whether this also entails differing phenomenological characteristics, such as vividness, rehearsal, or emotional valence, has not been previously investigated. In the current study, participants reported memories in an experimental paradigm designed to elicit voluntary and involuntary memories and rated them on a number of characteristics. If intention affects the retrieval process, then we should expect differences between the characteristics of involuntary and directly retrieved memories. The results imply that retrieval intention seems to differentiate how a memory appears in a person's mind. Furthermore, we argue that these differences in part could result from differences in encoding and consolidation.

Cue generation and memory construction in direct and generative autobiographical memory retrieval.

Theories of autobiographical memory emphasise effortful, generative search processes in memory retrieval. However recent research suggests that memories are often retrieved directly, without effortful search. We investigated whether direct and generative retrieval differed in the characteristics of memories recalled, or only in terms of retrieval latency. Participants recalled autobiographical memories in response to cue words. For each memory, they reported whether it was retrieved directly or generatively, rated its visuo-spatial perspective, and judged its accompanying recollective experience. Our results indicated that direct retrieval was commonly reported and was faster than generative retrieval, replicating recent findings. The characteristics of directly retrieved memories differed from generatively retrieved memories: directly retrieved memories had higher field perspective ratings and lower observer perspective ratings. However, retrieval mode did not influence recollective experience. We discuss our findings in terms of cue generation and content construction, and the implication for reconstructive models of autobiographical memory.

Operand-order effect in multiplication and addition: the long-term effects of reorganization processand acquisition sequence.

Butterworth, Marchesini, and Girelli (2003) showed that children solved multiplications faster when the larger operand was first (e.g., 5 · 2) than when the smaller operand was first (e.g., 2 · 5). This result was interpreted according to the reorganization hypothesis, which states that, as children begin to switch from counting-based strategies (e.g., repeated additions) to direct retrieval, non-retrieval strategies generate an advantage for the larger-operand-first order. In two experiments we showed that order preferences also persist into adulthood. With additions, the larger-operand-first order was solved faster than the inverse order. With multiplications we obtained a novel result: Largeroperand-first problems were solved faster when at least one operand was smaller than 5, whereas smaller-operand-first problems were solved faster when both operands were larger than 5. Since the reorganization process alone cannot explain our results, we propose that order preferences are also influenced by the sequence in which the members of a commuted pair are acquired.