熟悉性对被试操作效应的作用:来自无线索回忆再认的证据

在动作事件的再认记忆中,被试操作后的记忆成绩优于单纯的词语记忆(SPT效应)。人们认为操作促进了回想加工,而熟悉性是否对SPT效应起作用仍然存在分歧。研究采用无线索回忆再认范式,考察了信息提取失败时熟悉性对SPT效应的作用。结果显示:(1)SPT和VT两种编码都引发了稳定的无线索回忆再认效应(RWCR效应)。(2)与VT编码相比,SPT编码引发更强的熟悉性加工,表现出无线索回忆再认的记忆优势。上述结果表明,即使无法正确提取细节信息,在SPT编码中被试凭借熟悉性辨认的能力仍然高于VT编码。该结果从信息提取失败的视角为熟悉性对SPT效应的作用提供了更为直接的证据。     

Improved episodic integration through enactment: implications for aging

Enactment may improve memory for verb phrases by facilitating episodic integration of object-action components into a unitized whole. It is unclear, however, whether the influence of enactment on episodic integration is related to or independent of the strength of the preexisting semantic relationship between components. To address this issue, the authors examined the influence of enactment on memory for lists of semantically related object-action phrases ("Put money in the wallet") and semantically unrelated phrases created by repairing these objects and actions to make phrases that were unusual but still were possible to perform ("String a thread through the wallet," "Put money in the napkin"). As such, phrases in the related and unrelated lists were matched for familiarity of the individual components and differed only in the associative strength of the object-action relationship. Although verbatim recall of unrelated lists was poorer under standard verbal encoding conditions, enactment succeeded in bringing performance to the level of related lists, indicating that enactment's influence on episodic integration was independent of the semantic relatedness of the object and action components. Analysis of partial recall errors (accurate recall of only one component) suggested that enactment benefited recall in the unrelated lists by improving memory for the action and reducing fragmentation of the association, providing further support for the unitization view. This pattern of results was replicated in normal older adults, a population that exhibits particular difficulty with episodic memory for unrelated associations. The cognitive mechanisms by which enactment may improve episodic integration in both younger and older adults are discussed.     

The Role of Relational Processing in Memory for Actions: A Negative Enactment Effect in Free Recall

The enactment effect occurs if people remember items that they enacted or enacted symbolically during study better than items that they were simply asked to remember. Enactment is generally believed to lead to thorough processing of individual items. There has been some controversy as to whether the superior processing of information concerning the relations between action phrases (i.e. whole-list relational information) may additionally contribute to the enactment effect. The extant empirical data on this issue seem contradictory. In the account brough forward here, it is hypothesized that whole-list relational information is processed better during enactment than during verbal learning only if it taps the same aspect of a concept as the verb-object relational information within each action phrase. It is processed worse if these two types of information tap different aspects of a concept. This explanation represents an extension of the three-factor account of positive and negative generation effects to the field of memory for actions. To provide evidence for this account, positive and, notably, negative enactment effects in object recall and in organization scores are demonstrated in three experiments with a total of 246 participants.     

Memory organization of action events and its relationship to memory performance

Previous research yielded inconsistent results regarding the memory organization of self-performed actions. The authors propose that task performance changes the very basis of memory organization. Enactment during study and test (Experiment 1) yielded stronger enactive clustering (based on motor-movement similarities), whereas verbal encoding yielded stronger conceptual clustering (based on semantic-episodic similarities). Enactment enhanced memory quantity and memory accuracy. Both measures increased with enactive clustering under self-performance instructions but with conceptual clustering under verbal instructions. Enactment only during study (Experiment 2) or only during testing (Experiment 3) also enhanced enactive clustering. It is proposed that different conditions affect the relative salience of different types of memory organization and their relative contribution to recall.     

The influence of learning methods on collaboration: prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory

Research on collaborative memory has unveiled the counterintuitive yet robust phenomenon that collaboration impairs group recall. A candidate explanation for this collaborative inhibition effect is the disruption of people's idiosyncratic retrieval strategies during collaboration, and it is hypothesized that employing methods that improve one's organization protects against retrieval disruption. Here it is investigated how one's learning method during the study phase--defined as either repeatedly studying or repeatedly retrieving information--influences retrieval organization and what effects this has on collaborative recall and post-collaborative individual recall. Results show that repeated retrieval consistently eliminated collaborative inhibition. This enabled participants to gain the most from re-exposure to materials recalled by their partners that they themselves did not recall and led to improvements in their individual memory following collaboration. This repeated retrieval advantage stemmed from the preferential manner in which this learning method strengthened retrieval organization. Findings are also discussed that reveal a relationship between retrieval organization and the interaction observed between learning method and short versus long delay seen in the testing effect literature. Finally, results show that the elusive benefits of cross-cuing during collaboration may be best detected with a longer study-test delay. Together, these findings illuminate when and how collaboration can enhance memory.     

Memory of action events: the role of objects in memory of self- and other-performed tasks.

Encoding action phrases by enactment produces better recall than hearing or reading the action phrase. This study examined whether enactment enhances memory relative to observing another perform the same action. Theories of the enactment effect suggest that the complexity of the action, here manipulated by varying the number of objects involved in an action, may determine whether enactment enhances memory relative to observation. The results revealed a consistent subject-performed task advantage across all object conditions; the size of the effect did not vary with increasing task complexity. Additionally, items that included the use of an object were recalled better than those without objects. The results are consistent with the views of Engelkamp and Zimmer (1997) and Backman, Nilsson, & Kormi-Nouri (1993), who argued that the SPT effect is due to motor and/or sensory encoding.     

Decomposing retrieval and integration in memory for actions: A multinomial modeling approach

Typically, action phrases are recalled better if participants are asked to enact the phrases than if they are just asked to remember them. When investigating which processes constitute this enactment effect a difficulty is that observable effects in standard memory tests are ambiguous because such tests require several processes. In the present article, we introduce a multinomial model that decomposes observable memory performance into a retrieval parameter and a parameter concerning the item-specific processing and integration of an action phrase. These parameters are estimated from free recall and cued recall performance. The model fitted the data of two experiments designed to test it. Experiment 1 demonstrated the basic usefulness of the model by showing expected differences in the integration parameter in the absence of unexpected differences in the retrieval parameter. Experiment 2 extended the conditions under which the model is useful by showing expected differences in the retrieval parameter even in the presence of unexpected differences in the integration parameter. Together, these findings support our theoretical framework according to which enactment generally boosts integration of action phrases, but increases retrieval only for phrases with context cues.     

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 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).     

Cognitive costs of encoding novel natural activities: Can “learning by doing” be distracting and deceptive?

Findings from action memory research suggest that the enactment of simple actions and naturalistic activities results in similar memory performance to that from their observation. However, little is known about potential differences between the conditions during the encoding of the to-be-studied actions and activities. We analysed the cognitive costs of encoding two novel naturalistic activities studied via enactment or via observation in four experiments. In addition to memory performance, we measured objective cognitive costs with a secondary task and subjective cognitive costs with repeated ratings of mental effort and estimates of general activity difficulty. Memory performance was comparable across study conditions throughout all experiments. The enactment of activities repeatedly resulted in slower reaction times in the secondary task than did observation, suggesting higher objective costs. In contrast, subjective costs were rated lower after enactment than after observation. Findings from a pantomimic enactment condition suggested that the low ratings of subjective costs after enactment represent a misinterpretation of task demands. Our findings imply that the widespread belief about “learning by doing” as an easy way of learning does not stem from an actual advantage in memory performance, but rather from continuous feedback about one's performance resulting from enactment.     

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.     

Decomposing retrieval and integration in memory for actions: a multinomial modeling approach

Typically, action phrases are recalled better if participants are asked to enact the phrases than if they are just asked to remember them. When investigating which processes constitute this enactment effect a difficulty is that observable effects in standard memory tests are ambiguous because such tests require several processes. In the present article, we introduce a multinomial model that decomposes observable memory performance into a retrieval parameter and a parameter concerning the item-specific processing and integration of an action phrase. These parameters are estimated from free recall and cued recall performance. The model fitted the data of two experiments designed to test it. Experiment 1 demonstrated the basic usefulness of the model by showing expected differences in the integration parameter in the absence of unexpected differences in the retrieval parameter. Experiment 2 extended the conditions under which the model is useful by showing expected differences in the retrieval parameter even in the presence of unexpected differences in the integration parameter. Together, these findings support our theoretical framework according to which enactment generally boosts integration of action phrases, but increases retrieval only for phrases with context cues.     

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.     

Memory for goal-directed sequences of actions: Is doing better than seeing?

Verb-object phrases are usually remembered better if they have been enacted during study than if theyhave been learned verbally or if one has observed another person enact the phrases. Researchers have explained this well-established enactment effect by assuming that enactment leaves an additional motor code enhancing memory. We assume instead that enactment provokes excellentitem-specific processing at t he expense of processing relations between items. Thus, if recall were to depend on this relational processing that is hindered by enactment, enactment should not be a more effective encoding strategy than observation. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing the recall of sequences of related actions. In two experiments, we found no recall advantage of enactment over observing another person perform, though both encoding tasks were superior to verbal learning. Organization was best after observation. These findings imply that learning by viewing is not inferior to learning by doing.     

Lexical,conceptual and motor information in memory for action phrases: a multi-system account

According to the multi-system account [J. Engelkamp, H.D. Zimmer, The Human Memory: A Multi-Modal Approach, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, 1994], the enactment effect in free recall of action phrases (e.g. break the stick) is independent of inter- and intra-phrase associations because it emerges from the nonverbal encoding processes under enactment. Two experiments have been reported which tested these and further assumptions of the multi-system account of the enactment effect. In both experiments, inter- and intra-phrase (verb-object) associations were varied simultaneously in addition to enactment. In Experiment 1, the memory test was free recall, and in Experiment 2, it was cued recall. Independent effects of all three factors were observed in free recall. Enacted phrases were recalled better than phrases learned only verbally. Phrases with high-associated objects and verbs were better recalled than phrases with low-associated objects and verbs, and categorically related phrases were better recalled than unrelated phrases. In cued recall, there was no effect of categorical list structure. The effects of intra-phrase structure and enactment corresponded to those in free recall. All interactions were nonsignificant. The findings were interpreted as support for the multi-system account.     

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.     

Does action make you faster? A retrieval‐based approach to investigating the origins of the enactment effect

The enactment effect, the stable finding that memory for action phrases is enhanced in a subject-performed compared to a verbal task (SPT; VT), has repeatedly been demonstrated. The question remains whether the enactment effect has to do with specific characteristics of the SPT-retrieval process. Experiment 1 tested younger and older adults in a within-subjects design with two direct free recall tests. Thorough analyses of the recall process showed that the benefit from self-performing the items becomes apparent early into the retrieval phase for both age groups. Experiment 2 tested the same age groups with a retention phase of 30 minutes. The same general results pattern emerged. The acceleration of the recall process in SPTs is indicative of a heightened accessibility of the actively encoded material, making it less susceptible to forgetting. This property of SPTs must be taken into account when trying to determine the origins of the enactment effect.     

Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm

Three experiments demonstrated learners' abilities to adaptively and qualitatively accommodate their encoding strategies to the demands of an upcoming test. Stimuli were word pairs. In Experiment 1, test expectancy was induced for either cued recall (of targets given cues) or free recall (of targets only) across 4 study-test cycles of the same test format, followed by a final critical cycle featuring either the expected or the unexpected test format. For final tests of both cued and free recall, participants who had expected that test format outperformed those who had not. This disordinal interaction, supported by recognition and self-report data, demonstrated not mere differences in effort based on anticipated test difficulty, but rather qualitative and appropriate differences in encoding strategies based on expected task demands. Participants also came to appropriately modulate metacognitive monitoring (Experiment 2) and study-time allocation (Experiment 3) across study-test cycles. Item and associative recognition performance, as well as self-report data, revealed shifts in encoding strategies across trials; these results were used to characterize and evaluate the different strategies that participants employed for cued versus free recall and to assess the optimality of participants' metacognitive control of encoding strategies. Taken together, these data illustrate a sophisticated form of metacognitive control, in which learners qualitatively shift encoding strategies to match the demands of anticipated tests.     

Gesturing helps memory encoding in aMCI

Encoding in episodic memory is a step often impaired in patients with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI). However, procedural memory processes are still relatively preserved. In line with previous research on the enactment effect, we investigated the potential benefit of encoding words combined with imitative gestures on episodic memory. Based on the Grober and Buschke’s free/cued recall procedure, we developed the Symbiosis test in which 13 patients with aMCI and 16 healthy elderly participants learned 32 words belonging to 16 different semantic categories either in a verbal encoding (A) or a bimodal (B; verbal and motor imitation) condition, using a blocked ABBA/BAAB procedure. Overall, memory retrieval was better in healthy participants than in patients with aMCI, and better for cued retrieval in the bimodal encoding (gesture cues) than the verbal encoding (category cues) condition, but there was no interaction effect between group and encoding conditions. These results show that performing concomitant gestures can enhance cued episodic memory retrieval in patients with aMCI and in healthy elderly controls. The Symbiosis test broadens the scope of the enactment effect, from action phrases to isolated words learning in patients with aMCI. Future work should investigate how bimodal encoding provides novel perspectives for memory rehabilitation in patients with aMCI.     

Relevance of the listener’s motor system in recalling phrases enacted by the speaker

Memory for series of action phrases improves in listeners when speakers accompany each phrase with congruent gestures compared to when speakers stay still. Studies reveal that the listeners’ motor system, at encoding, plays a crucial role in this enactment effect. We present two experiments on gesture observation, which explored the role of the listeners’ motor system at recall. The participants listened to the phrases uttered by a speaker in two conditions in each experiment. In the gesture condition, the speaker uttered the phrases with accompanying congruent gestures, and in the no-gesture condition, the speaker stayed still while uttering the phrases. The participants were then invited, in both conditions of the experiments, to perform a motor task while recalling the phrases proffered by the speaker. The results revealed that the advantage of observing gestures on memory disappears if the listeners move at recall arms and hands (same motor effectors moved by the speaker, Experiment 1a), but not when the listeners move legs and feet (different motor effectors from those moved by the speaker, Experiment 1b). The results suggest that the listeners’ motor system is involved not only during the encoding of action phrases uttered by a speaker but also when recalling these phrases during retrieval.