Is context in memory encoded or reconstructed ? Experimental evidence

In context-dependent memory research, focal objects are by default ascribed to items whereas backgrounds are considered the context. Recognition or recall for focal items is assessed while the correspondence between encoding and retrieval backgrounds is manipulated. Questioning this assumption, Easton et al. recently proposed that context is reconstructed rather than encoded: any aspect of an event can become either item or context, depending on the question asked. In other words, the features that are defined as incidental by the question form the context, which only makes sense at the time of recall. Here we provide the first evidence supporting this hypothesis across six pre-registered experiments employing a context reinstatement paradigm in young adults (N=42/experiment). When the memory test focused on background scenes (Experiments 1–2), reinstating the original objects increased old responses to target and lure scenes. This effect was replicated when background scenes were task-irrelevant and objects task-relevant at encoding (Experiment 3). Finally, Experiments 4a-5 showed that, when objects are task-irrelevant at encoding, this effect exists but depends on the size of the objects on screen. These results show that context is not defined at encoding; rather, it is the questions at retrieval that define context in memory retrieval. Any element of a memory trace can thus become the context depending on the focus of retrieval, irrespective of its nature (background vs foreground/focal) and its relevance during encoding (task-irrelevant vs task-relevant), although the perceptual properties of the stimuli can modulate the effect of context on memory retrieval.