Item and order information in subject-performed tasks and experimenter-performed tasks

This study investigated the enactment effect from the perspective of the item-order hypothesis (e.g., M. Serra & J. S. Nairne, 1993). The authors assumed that in subject-performed tasks (SPTs), item encoding is improved but order encoding is disrupted compared with experimenter-performed tasks (EPTs), that order encoding of EPTs is only better in pure lists, and that the item--order hypothesis is confined to short lists. Item information was tested in recognition memory tests, order information in order reconstruction tasks, and both item and order information in free-recall tests. The results of 5 experiments using short (8 items) and long lists (24 items) in a design with list type (pure, mixed) and encoding condition (EPT, SPT) as factors supported the hypotheses.     

Memory for actions: Self-performed tasks and the reenactment effect

Encoding action phrases by enactment (self-performed tasks, or SPTs) leads to better memory than does observing actions (experimenter-performed tasks, or EPTs) or hearing action phrases (Engelkamp, 1998). In addition, recognition memory for SPTs is enhanced when test items are reenacted. Experiment 1 demonstrated a reenactment effect for EPTs, as well as for SPTs, indicating that the effect can be based on visual, as well as motoric, feedback. However, the reenactment effect in SPTs was found even when the participants were blindfolded at test (Experiment 2), indicating that the basis for the reenactment effect differs across SPTs and EPTs. Experiments 3 and 4 provided additional evidence that visual feedback is not critical for reenactment recognition in the case of SPTs. In addition, these experiments failed to show a hand congruency effect (enhanced recognition when the same hand enacts at study and at test), indicating that this effect is not as generalizable as the reenactment effect. These results have important implications for the motor-encoding hypothesis of the enactment effect.     

Categorical-relational and order-relational information in memory for subject-performed and experimenter-performed actions

Memory for self-performed tasks (SPTs) is better than memory for experimenter-performed tasks (EPTs). In short unrelated lists of actions this effect occurs if the encoding condition is manipulated within subjects. In a between-subjects design, the enactment effect disappears (J. Engelkamp & D. Dehn, 2000; J. Engelkamp & H. D. Zimmer, 1997). These findings were explained by the item-order hypothesis, which claims that encoding order information depends on the type of encoding and design. The authors demonstrate that this differential encoding of order information in EPTs and SPTs is not effective in free recall if categorized lists are used. The use of categorized lists makes the interaction of type of encoding and design in free recall of short lists disappear, and the enactment effect reappears independent of the type of design.     

Developmental differences in episodic memory across school ages: evidence from enacted events performed by self and others

The aim of this study was to examine action memory as a form of episodic memory among school-aged subjects. Most research on action memory has focused on memory changes in adult populations. This study explored the action memory of children over time. A total of 410 school-aged child participants, comprising 201 girls and 208 boys in four age groups (8, 10, 12, and 14), were included in this study. We studied two forms of action encoding, subject-performed tasks (SPTs) and experimenter-performed tasks (EPTs), which were compared with one verbal encoding task as a control condition. At retrieval, we used three memory tests (free recall, cued recall, and recognition). We observed significant differences in memory performance in children aged 8–14 years with respect to free recall and cued recall but not recognition. The largest memory enhancement was observed for the SPTs in the 8–14-year-old participants under all test conditions. Participants performed equally well on the free recall of SPTs and EPTs, whereas they displayed better performances on the cued recall and recognition of SPTs compared to EPTs. The strategic nature of SPTs and the distinction between item-specific information and relational information are discussed.     

Memory for actions: Item and relational information in categorized lists

Enacting action phrases in subject-performed tasks (SPTs) leads to better free recall than hearing or reading the same materials in verbal tasks (VTs). This enactment effect is usually explained by better item-specific information in SPTs than in VTs. The role of relational information is controversial. In the present paper, we will take the multiple recall approach to study the role of item and relational information in memory for actions by computing the number of item gains and the number of item losses over trials. This approach has previously been applied to lists of unrelated action phrases. We applied it to categorically related lists, also allowing a measure of relational information by clustering scores. It was found that SPTs produced more item gains than VTs. This finding confirmed the assumption that SPTs provide better item-specific information than VTs. The number of item losses did not differ between VTs and SPTs. This finding suggests that relational information is equally provided by VTs and SPTs. However, the organizational scores showed a more differentiated picture. Clustering was greater in SPTs than in VTs with randomly presented lists, but not with blocked lists. We suggested that these results, as well as other findings from the literature, could be explained by distinguishing automatic and strategic processes and the types of item associations that are addressed by these processes.     

Recall of Subject-Performed Tasks,Verbal Tasks,and Cognitive Activities Across the Adult Life Span: Parallel Age-Related Deficits

Motor activity during encoding of verbal information has been suggested to reduce age differences in episodic memory. Here we examined memory for sentences encoded with enactment (SPTs, subject-performed tasks) or without enactment (VTs, verbal tasks) in a population-based sample consisting of 10 groups ranging in age from 35 to 80 years (N = 1000). Memory performance was assessed by immediate free- and category-cued recall. Degree of clustering was measured by the adjusted ratio of clustering score. Recall of cognitive activities served as a complementary measure of memory for performed tasks. Sentence recall showed a gradual decline across age, of about the same magnitude for SPTs and VTs, in both free and cued recall. Clustering in free recall was higher for SPTs than for VTs, but there were no age differences in clustering. A pattern of gradual decline from age 35 was observed also in activity recall, regardless of whether the activities involved motor activity or not. Across the memory measures, differences in education accounted for all of the age-related variance in performance among the younger (35-55 years) but not the older groups (60-80 years), suggesting that genuine aging effects in these measures are more prominent in old age. Together, the results indicate that age differences in episodic memory, in line with most, if not all, types of encoding support, generalize across the performed/non-performed distinction.     

动作记忆SPT优势效应的理论探讨

操作条件下的记忆效果好于语词条件下记忆效果的现象被称为动作记忆SPT效应。以往研究先后提出非策略加工、多通道加工、动作编码及情景整合理论来解释SPT效应,但这些理论解释仍存在矛盾和分歧,并阻碍了当前动作记忆领域的研究进展。为了解决目前的理论困境,本文详细地阐述了各理论的核心内容、发展历程及其存在矛盾和分歧的原因,并提出应以加工过程与加工对象相结合的视角来建立新的理论模型,以进一步促进实证研究的展开。     

The role of movement and object in action memory: a comparative study between blind, blindfolded and sighted subjects

Two experiments systematically compared four SPT conditions involving real/imaginary movement and real/imaginary object with one VT condition involving no enactment and no object. To test the effect of visual information on SPT memory, sighted subjects were compared with blindfolded subjects (in Experiment 1) and blind subjects (in Experiment 2). All subjects learned all SPTs and VTs. Free recall data showed no difference between the SPT conditions and between the groups of subjects; only blind subjects were found to be limited in the use of visualization strategy. All SPTs were recalled better than VTs, indicating that the enactment effect is not determined by either movement or object alone, rather both have an effective role and are equally involved for obtaining the enactment effect. The results provide no support for the motor encoding and multimodality views of SPTs, but are in line with the episodic integration view which assumes that neither movement nor object are of special importance, rather both have contribution in the enactment effect.     

The effects of interference tasks on recency in the free recall of action events

Summary Lists of verbal instructions were read aloud and each was enacted either by the subject (SPTs) or by the experimenter (EPTs). In Experiment 1 free recall was made of lists of SPTs and EPTs either immediately after presentation, after an empty 20-s delay interval, or after a 20-s delay interval filled with backward counting. The recall of recency items was unaffected by the empty delay interval, but was somewhat reduced by the counting task. In Experiment 2 free recall was made of lists of SPTs and EPTs either immediately after presentation or after a delay that was filled with a single SPT or a single EPT, 20 s in length. The recency effect evident in the immediate-recall condition was virtually wiped out in the delay conditions, irrespective of whether the delay task matched those in the free-recall list or not. These results are discussed in terms of the mnemonic similarity of the two types of action event.     

A component analysis of action events

Summary Three experiments are reported, that examine the basis of the recall superiority of subject-performed tasks (SPTs) over verbal-memory tasks (VTs), and the interitem variability for SPTs. In Experiments 1 and 2 a component analysis of SPTs is undertaken in order to explore the importance of (a) involvement of external objects, (b) multimodality, and (c) enactment, for the superior memory performance for SPTs over that for VTs. In Experiment 3 the role of retrieval support, in terms of a high degree of match between the encoding and retrieval situations, was investigated in order to find out why some SPTs are easier to recall than others. The results indicate that it is difficult to separate out a single component as the most critical one for the superiority of SPT recall over VT recall, and that a high degree of match between encoding and retrieval conditions improves SPT recall. It is suggested that, in order to explain the large differences in memorability between SPTs and VTs, it is sufficient to consider the more supportive encoding situation for SPTs, but to explain differences in recallability between various SPTs, the compatibility between encoding and test has to be taken into consideration.     

Levels-of-processing effects in subject-performed tasks

In memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects encode a list of simple action phrases (e.g., thumb through a book, knock at the door) by performing these actions during learning. In three experiments, we investigated the size of the levels-of-processing effects in SPTs as compared with those in standard verbal learning tasks (VTs). Subjects under SPT and VT conditions learned lists of action phrases in a surface or a conceptual orienting task. Under both encoding conditions, the subjects recalled fewer items with surface orienting tasks than with conceptual orienting tasks, but the levels-of-processing effects were strongly reduced in the SPT condition. In the SPT condition, items that were encoded in a surface orienting task were still substantially recalled. The items were recalled almost as well as the conceptually encoded items in the VT condition. The distinct reduction of the levels-of-processing effect is caused by the fact that, in SPT encoding even with a verbal surface orienting task, subjects process conceptual information in order to perform the denoted action. We attribute the small conceptual advantage, which remains with SPT despite the conceptual processing for performing, to the fact that items are not as well integrated into memory as they are when conceptual processing is focused on the action component, rather than on the semantic contexts. This lower integration reduces the accessibility of items in the verbal surface task, even with SPT encoding.     

Memory in educable mentally retarded adults: Deficit in subject or experimenter?

Educable mentally retarded (EMR) and nonretarded adults free recalled lists of (a) words, (b) minitasks performed by the subjects (SPTs), (c) minitasks performed by the experimenter (EPTs), or (d) task instructions. The EMR subjects were significantly inferior to the nonretarded subjects in the immediate recall of words, EPTs and instructions, but not in the immediate recall of SPTs. This proficiency of the EMR subjects in SPT recall was attributed to the nonstrategic nature of this test. The EMR subjects were, however, inferior to the nonretarded subjects in a final free recall (recall of all lists) of all four types of item.     

Interevent differences in event memory: Why are some events more recallable than others?

Interitem differences in the free recall of action events were studied in five experiments. The action events were presented in three different formats: minitasks performed by the subjects in response to verbal instructions from the experimenter (SPTs), minitasks performed by the experimenter (EPTs), and task instructions (TIs). Not only were reliable interevent differences in recall probability demonstrated within each format, but these differences tended to correlate across formats, especially between the SPTs and EPTs; thus, a highly recallable SPT also tended to be a highly recallable EPT. Attempts to explain interitem recall differences in terms of differences in familiarity, vividness, and the availability of environmental cues were largely unsuccessful. An experimental analysis of the action events into action and object components showed the recall probabilities of our events to be mainly dependent on the recall probabilities of their action components, with only a minor dependence on the recall probabilities of their object components.     

Effects of enactment by professional actors at encoding and retrieval

This experiment investigated memory benefits similar to those found with subject-performed tasks (SPTs) but under widely differing circumstances. Almost all SPT research has shown that as long as enactment takes place at encoding, mode of recall (enactment vs. verbal recall) is immaterial. Using professional actors, the experimenters had previously shown (Noice & Noice, 1999) that movement that was not semantically congruent with the accompanying material produced enhanced recall at retrieval compared to a non-moving condition, a result that did not appear to be due to the fact that retrieval conditions closely resembled encoding conditions. Experiment 1 of the present study replicated and extended this finding, demonstrating that the effect can be found after a delay of five months with actors of varying age and experience, and that the enhancement is not dependent on physical context. Experiment 2 demonstrated that, even with purely verbal retrieval of material that had been equated for memorability, dialogue originally performed when the participants had been engaged in movement from place to place was better recalled than dialogue originally performed when the participants had remained in one location. Taken together, these results indicate that movement at retrieval is not necessary for the nonliteral enactment effect to occur, but that such movement can aid recall compared to a purely verbal mode of report.     

Gains and losses in action memory.

Enacting action phrases (SPT for subject-performed task) produces better free recall than only learning the phrases verbally (VT for verbal task). A widespread explanation of the enactment effect is based on the distinction between item-specific and relational information. There is widespread agreement that the main reason is the excellent item-specific encoding by enactment. However, there is little direct evidence in the case of free recall. The role of relational information is less clear. We suggest that content-based relational encoding is better in VTs than in SPTs. In three experiments, in which multiple free recall testing used item gains and losses as indices of item-specific and content-based relational encoding, respectively, these assumptions were confirmed. Consistently more gains (indexing better item-specific encoding) and more losses (indexing poorer relational encoding) were observed in SPTs than in VTs (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the content-based relational information underlying losses is not identical with order-relational information (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, it was shown that an item-specific orienting task for VTs produced an equivalent number of item gains and losses as did the SPT condition.     

Organisation and Recall in Verbal Tasks and in Subject-performed Tasks

In memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects encode a list of simple action phrases (e.g. "lift the pen", "open the book") by performing these actions during learning. Performing tasks has proved to be a much more efficient type of encoding than verbal tasks (VTs), in which subjects only listen to the action phrases in order to memorise them. It is assumed that good item-specific encoding after SPTs plays an important role in the SPT effect. The role of relational encoding for the SPT effect is less clear, as is the question of whether SPT encoding is automatic or controlled. Two experiments were conducted to address these issues. Subjects learned lists which were categorically structured in VTs and SPTs, under focal attention or divided attention. The results indicated that relational encoding does not differ between VTs and SPTs, and that free recall is impaired in both cases by divided attention, more so in VTs than in SPTs. It is concluded that the SPT effect is primarily based on item-specific information rather than on relational information, and that VTs are more dependent than SPTs on active encoding.     

The item-order hypothesis reconsidered: The role of order information in free recall

According to the item-order approach of free recall, in pure short lists the free recall of unrelated items is organized according to their order of presentation in the study list. The approach was applied in the present study to experimenter-performed tasks (EPTs) and subject-performed tasks (SPTs). It claims that EPTs provide better serial order information than SPTs. Consequently, free recall of EPTs should be more organized along the presentation order of the items than the free recall of SPTs. In three experiments, some specific aspects of this approach were studied. Firstly, it was demonstrated that serial retrieval is not strongly used spontaneously and that its use is overestimated in the literature because it is usually evoked by an order reconstruction test which follows free recall testing. Secondly, a serial retrieval strategy in free recall can be encouraged by explicit instructions. Finally, the present experiments showed that a serial output strategy alone does not allow one to predict performance in free recall. The implications of these findings for the item-order approach will be discussed.     

Structuring the Acquisition and Retrieval Environment to Facilitate Learning in Individuals with Dementia of the Alzheimer Type

Three experiments using variations of the Subject Performed Task (SPT) paradigm examined whether structuring the learning and retrieval environment would improve learning in individuals with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). Experiment 1 examined the role of enactment at encoding and retrieval, and found that with appropriate retrieval support DAT volunteers do benefit from enactment at encoding. Experiment 2 showed that recall was further enhanced when the list of SPTs formed a cohesive, goal-directed sequence of actions. In Experiment 3, DAT subjects acquired a more complex action-based sequence and maintained it accurately over a short period of time. It is concluded that the provision of contextual support at encoding and at retrieval can enhance residual memory in individuals with DAT.     

Age differences in memory for prospective compared with retrospective subject-performed tasks

In two experiments, younger and older adults studied three lists of verbal phrases, each of the latter describing a simple action. One list was studied and recalled verbally; one was recalled verbally, but the actions were performed at study [retrospective SPTs (subject-performed tasks)]; and one was studied verbally and the actions were performed at test (prospective SPTs). With long lists, but not with short ones, retrospective-SPT recall exceeded verbal recall and older adults recalled fewer SPTs than did younger adults. Prospective-SPT recall did not exceed verbal recall at either list length, and in each of these prospective-SPT tests, older adults recalled fewer action phrases than did younger adults. Thus, it appears that when retrospective and prospective tasks are equated there are marked age differences that are generally consistent with the view that memory impairment in the elderly is more likely to occur in tasks that make higher attentional processing demands.