The effect of retrieval enactment on recall of subject-performed tasks and verbal tasks

The effect of retrieval enactment on memory for nouns (objects) or verbal phrases describing simple actions (e.g., “lift the box”) was addressed in two experiments. In Experiment 1, the type of object involved in the actions was manipulated, with three different types of object being used (body parts, laboratory-related objects, and external objects). In Experiment 2, the integration between the verb-noun pairs was manipulated (well-integrated vs. poorly integrated). Results from both experiments showed that whereas encoding enactment (motor encoding and verbal test) substantially improved the memory performance compared with a verbal condition (verbal encoding and verbal test), retrieval enactment (verbal encoding and motor test) had no major impact on the number of recalled nouns or phrases. Moreover, there was no additional effect of dual enactment (motor encoding and motor test). The overall pattern of the results suggests that there is a fundamental difference between motor processing at encoding and motor processing at retrieval, and the lack of encoding specificity advantage for the motor modality contradicts the view that encoding enactment of verbal commands results in storage of motor representations.     

Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition

Two experiments focused on whether performing actions described by to-be-remembered phrases during recognition enhances recognition compared with results of a standard verbal recognition test. The enhancement was predicted when the actions described by the phrases had been performed during study, but not when the phrases were verbally encoded by simply listening to and memorizing the material. Both experiments showed that enactment prior to recognition improved memory performance, but only when subjects had encoded by enactment. Experiment 1 also demonstrated that this test-procedure effect was independent of a bizarreness effect, which was observed only with the verbal encoding task. Experiment 2 showed that the effect of enactment during recognition was reduced when subjects used different hands for performing the actions during study and recognition- The findings support the assumption that some kind of motor memory record underlies the enactment effect that occurs when actions are performed during recognition.     

Memory for action events: findings in neurological patients

Encoding action phrases by enacting leads normally to better memory performance than verbal encoding. In order to gain additional insight into the representational basis of the enactment effect, neurological patients are contrasted with healthy participants. Persons suffering from Parkinson's disease, which primarily impairs the motor system, and patients suffering from Frontal Lobe Syndrome, which primarily affects action-related planning processes, were involved. We investigated whether the enactment effect would be differentially affected by these disorders. In addition, the characteristics of information processing after encoding by enacting was analyzed by varying memory material (unrelated versus clusterable actions) and by adding an encoding condition that included obligatory action planning (director condition). The findings indicate that the impact of motor information for the enactment effect is not dominant compared to the role of action-related cognitive and motivational processes, in particular planning processes. The findings of the two experiments are explained within traditional conceptual memory theories.     

The role of integration in recognition failure and action memory

In three experiments, we studied memory for action events with respect to exceptions from the Tulving-Wiseman function demonstrated in experiments on recognition failure of recallable words. In Experiment 1, we examined exceptions of poor integration in a regular recognition failure condition (i.e., recognition of targets without contextual cues, followed by recall of targets in the presence of contextual cues). In Experiment 2, we examined exceptions of cue overlap in which subjects also had access to the information of contextual cues at recognition test. In Experiment 3, we attempted to equate the levels of recognition across the action and verbal encoding. In addition, the cue overlap and no-cue overlap conditions were studied in a within-subjects design. Results from the three experiments indicated that encoding enactment (episodic integration) and conceptual integration (semantic integration) are related to each other. As a consequence of this relationship, there is a larger independence between recognition and recall of well-integrated items with encoding enactment. On the other hand, for the poorly integrated items without encoding enactment, there is a larger dependence between recognition and recall. Even in the cue overlap condition, where there is a case of large dependence between recognition and recall, the same pattern of data was observed. The results are discussed in terms of an episodic integration view of encoding enactment.     

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.     

Negative Cueing Effects with Weak and Strong Intralist Cues

In three experiments, we studied cueing effects of relational and itemspecific information after enacted and non-enacted encoding of short sentences (e.g. lift the pen, fold the paper). In Experiment 1, all subjects were instructed at encoding to remember only the nouns of these sentences; half of the subjects were informed about the categorical nature of the nouns, whereas the other half were not. At retrieval, all subjects were given a free recall test and a cued recall test with the verb of each sentence as the cue. In Experiment 2, all subjects were instructed at encoding to remember the whole sentence; as in Experiment 1, half of the subjects were informed about the categorical nature of the nouns and half were not. At test, all subjects were given two cued recall tests, one categorical cue for each noun in the first test and one verb cue and one categorical cue for each noun in the second test. In Experiment 3, at encoding, all subjects were informed about the categorical nature of nouns and were instructed to remember the whole sentence. In this experiment, the actions were performed with imaginary objects; free recall and cued recall tests were given to different subjects. In all three experiments, there was a negative effect of intralist cueing with verbs. This finding is at odds with the Encoding Specificity Principle, which assumes facilitation of cueing at retrieval if the cues were encoded together with the to-be-remembered information at encoding. Also, the effect of intralist cueing was different after encoding with enactment than after encoding without enactment; this difference holds true for enactment with real objects but not for enactment with imaginary objects. Enactment increased both the relational and the item-specific cueing efficiency. The results are discussed in terms of encoding interference between cues and targets and between item-specific processing and relational processing. Enacted encoding is conceived as integrating episodic information both with respect to item specificity and relational aspects of the information.     

Signing enhances memory like performing actions

In three experiments, we investigated the influence of the overt performance of signs on memory. Deaf and hearing participants studied lists of action phrases (Experiment 1) or nouns (Experiment 2) under standard verbal instruction, under the instructions to sign the verbal phrase, to symbolically perform the denoted action, or to carry out a prototypical action corresponding to each noun. Higher recall and recognition performances were observed when actions were performed than in the verbal encoding condition, and signing was as effective for memory as was enactment. Thus, overt signing can induce an enactment effect. In contrast, Experiment 3 demonstrated that performing an unrelated action did not. A unique but unrelated action was not memory efficient.     

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.     

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 effects of motor activation in subject-performed tasks and sign language

Research on memory has consistently shown that when a subject-performed task (SPT) is compared with a traditional verbal task (VT), enactment at the encoding of verbal materials (i.e., SPT) yields better memory performance than does nonenactment (i.e. VT). There is some controversy regarding the extent to which motor activation per se might be causing this effect, and whether or not SPTs may be influenced by memory strategies. The purpose of this study was to contribute toward a solution of these questions. The effect of SPT encoding was compared with the effect of encoding by means of a sign language task (SLT). The SLT condition is claimed to be a verbal/linguistic task with a major relevant motor component. The motor activation in SLT is in the present study seen to be the main difference between the SLT and the VT, and the main similarity between the SLT and the SPT. Control conditions were tested in order to evaluate possible effects of translation and imagery in the SLT condition. Subjects in the SLT condition performed similarly to subjects in the SPT condition in free recall. Subjects in both these conditions outperformed subjects in the control conditions. The SPT and SLT superiority is suggested to be caused mainly by relevant motor activation.     

The role of enactment in implicit and explicit memory

Enactment during the encoding of simple imperatives has been found to improve substantially performance on conceptually driven explicit-memory tests. In two experiments the effect of this manipulation on a conceptually driven implicit test (category association) was studied. A conceptually driven explicit test (free recall) was also included. In Experiment one three different study conditions (enactment with real objects, reading, and generation) were considered. In Experiment two there were two study conditions (enactment with imaginary objects and reading). Compared to reading, generation was found to improve the performance on both free recall and category association, whereas enactment affected free recall only. In a final experiment subjects imagined that they performed the tasks, and this manipulation was found to improve the memory performance on both tests. Taken together, this pattern of results is interpreted as suggesting that free recall and category association have a process in common that is sensitive to semantic processing at study (promoted by generation and imagery, but not by enactment), and that free recall involves a retrieval process in addition that is facilitated by a rich encoding environment (provided by enactment).     

The generation effect: dissociating enhanced item memory and disrupted order memory

Generating stimuli at encoding typically improves memory for occurrence (item memory) but might disrupt memory for order. In three experiments, the relationship between generation and order memory was examined by using familiar stimuli, which give rise to the standard generation advantage in item memory, and unfamiliar stimuli, which do not. The participants generated or read words and non-words in Experiments 1 and 2 and familiar and unfamiliar word compounds in Experiment 3. For the familiar stimuli, generation enhanced item memory (as measured by recognition) but disrupted performance on the order-reconstruction test. For the unfamiliar stimuli, generation produced no recognition advantage and yet persisted in disrupting order reconstruction. Thus, the positive effects of generation on item memory were dissociated from its negative impact on order memory.     

Recognition memory for words and pictures at short and long retention intervals

In two experiments, subjects studied a long series of words and pictures for recognition. Retention intervals varied from several minutes to a few months. The complicated testing procedures in Experiment I required the use of a traditional correction for guessing to obtain estimates of subjects' memory performance. A comparable, but simpler, design in Experiment II permitted the calculation of sensitivity and bias measures. In both studies, pictorial memory was superior to verbal memory at all retention intervals tested, and this advantage was essentially constant over time. In addition, the experiments identified an increasing tendency to call verbal test items "old" over time. Bias scores in Experiment H revealed that subjects adopted a more lenient criterion in responding to words than to pictures, and increased leniency was noted for both item types over time. Explanations of the results are offered in terms of differences in initial encoding and of a loss of discrimination between experimental and extraexperimental materials.     

The association of motor information and verbal information: a new perspective on the mechanism of the SPT effect

Current perspectives on the mechanism underlying the Subject Performed Task (SPT) effect have not yet reached a consensus. This study investigated whether the association between motor and verbal information is a key factor that explains the SPT effect. Experiment 1 and 2 tested whether motor and verbal retrieval memory performance were different when the association level was varied. Results showed that when subjects used low association learning materials, memory performance in either motor or verbal retrieval condition was significantly better than performance in the combined retrieval condition. Experiment 3 examined whether the level of association between motor and verbal information affects the SPT effect. Results revealed that the SPT effect disappeared when low association learning materials were used. Our findings imply that the high association level between motor and verbal information enables mutual activation of the two information types, leading to improved memory performance.     

Routes to Actions and their Efficacy for Remembering

Four experiments focused on the influence that different controls of actions have on memory for these actions. A verbal-to-action task in which subjects had to perform actions on verbal command was distinguished from a movement-to-action task in which subjects had to perform the same action that a model had shown (imitation). We expected free recall to be worse for the imitation condition than for the enactment-on-command condition. The following rank order of recall performances was observed: verbal learning << perceiving the model = imitating the watched model < performing on command = performing on command in addition to perceiving the model. The less pronounced effect of imitation on memory is explained by the fact that subjects in this condition could directly use the information provided by perception for enactment without selection and detailed planning of motor actions. In contrast, subjects in the command-to-action condition had to look up the “motor program”. The inefficiency of using two modalities, i.e. perception and action, as compared to using only one is explained by the redundancy of encoded information in the visual and “motor” modality.     

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。     

Improving metacognitive accuracy: How failing to retrieve practice items reduces overconfidence

People often exhibit inaccurate metacognitive monitoring. For example, overconfidence occurs when people judge that they will remember more information on a future test then they actually do. The present experiments examined whether a small number of retrieval practice opportunities would improve participants’ metacognitive accuracy by reducing overconfidence. Participants studied Lithuanian–English paired associates and predicted their performance on an upcoming memory test. Then they attempted to retrieve one or more practice items (or none in the control condition) and made a second prediction. Experiment 1 showed that failing to retrieve a single practice item lead to improved subsequent performance predictions – participants became less overconfident. Experiment 2 directly manipulated retrieval failure and showed that again failure to retrieve a single practice item significantly improved subsequent predictions, relative to when participants successfully retrieved the practice item. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that additional retrieval practice opportunities reduced overconfidence and improved prediction accuracy.     

Procedural dependence in action memory: Effects of verb form and individual vs group conditions

Two experiments explored whether the magnitude of the enactment effect in action memory (i. e., higher recall with motor than with non-motor encoding) may depend upon the use of individual or group testing procedures. Nonmotor encoding instructions, requiring the subjects to listen to orally presented action items, were compared to instructions which also required enactment. With encoding treated as a within-subject factor, the observations failed to reveal any significant difference between individual and group testing. With encoding treated as a between-subject factor, the results showed an interaction between test and encoding conditions, such that an enactment effect was found only with group testing. Different support value for auditory cues in group and individual test situations was assumed to account for this difference. In a third experiment the indicative and imperative verb forms were compared. An interaction was observed, showing that in Norwegian, enacted verbs were remembered better when presented in the indicative than in the imperative. No corresponding difference was found under non-enactment conditions. For this finding, a social interaction interpretation was offered.