Figure 4. Encoding-retrieval similarity (ERS) in two-task lists.

A. Calculation of ERS of the current state of context after recall of a preboundary item with its associated neighbors at study: both the preceding neighbor presented with the same task, and thus within the same event (Within), and with its subsequent neighbor across a different event (Across). Task text is for illustrative purposes only; to participants this was implicit from the color, font and case of the word. B. CMR predicts that the retrieval of an item bordering an event boundary (e.g. ‘plum’ in A) leads to retrieval of that item’s temporal context states from study, including the disruption to temporal context caused by the event boundary. Thus, the current state of temporal context—which incorporates the item’s retrieved temporal context—should be more similar to the context of adjacent studied item within the same event (e.g. ‘mop’) than the adjacent studied item from a different event (e.g. ‘sand’). However, the difference by event relationship is more subtle than during study (compare with 3B). C. Mean ERS in the behavioral data was not significant by event relationship. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean. D. Participants exhibiting greater disruption to temporal context during study also exhibit a greater reinstatement of disruption in temporal context during recall. ~ p = .06 (one-tailed).