动作操作与怪异性对联结记忆的影响

被试操作任务（SPT）编码后的记忆成绩通常优于语词任务（VT）编码后的记忆成绩,此类现象被称为SPT效应。本研究考察动作与物体之间已有的联结程度对联结再认的SPT效应的影响。学习阶段,被试使用SPT与VT编码识记日常动作短语（动作与物体配对,如“切西瓜”）和怪异动作短语（如“种锤子”）;测试阶段,要求被试区分“旧”、“重组合”和“新”短语。结果发现,当识记日常动作短语时,SPT条件的联结再认成绩显著高于VT条件的成绩,但是,当识记怪异动作短语时,SPT条件与VT条件的联结再认成绩无显著差异。此外,仅在VT而非SPT条件,怪异动作短语的联结再认成绩显著高于日常动作短语的成绩。研究结果表明,动作操作和刺激材料的怪异性均可促进动作与物体的联结记忆,但是两者不能对联结记忆产生叠加的促进作用。     

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.     

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.     

SPT效应的自动突显机制:来自输出监测的证据

研究采用"对回忆的再认"范式,从输出监测的角度考察了操作效应的提取机制。实验1结果显示,被试操作任务条件下的自由回忆的系列位置成绩缺乏首因效应,却拥有扩展的近因效应;被试操作任务条件下的"对回忆的再认"成绩显著差于语词任务下的成绩,差异具体表现在组块2~9、10、11和12上,表明在上述组块,被试操作任务条件下的提取存在自动突显,即操作效应得益于这些组块在提取时的自动突显。实验2结果显示,在类别测验下,被试操作任务和语词任务的自由回忆成绩拥有相似的系列位置曲线,而"对回忆的再认"结果同实验1。研究认为自由回忆的系列位置效应与自动突显机制之间不存在直接的因果关系,而"对回忆的再认"范式则能敏感地测量出操作效应的提取机制。     

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.     

Design-effects in prospective and retrospective memory for actions

There is ample evidence that memory for action phrases such as "open the bottle" is better in subject-performed tasks (SPTs), i.e., if the participants perform the actions, than in verbal tasks (VTs), if they only read the phrases or listen to them. It is less clear whether also the sole intention to perform the actions later, i.e., a prospective memory task (PT), improves memory compared with VTs. Inconsistent findings have been reported for within-subjects and between-subjects designs. The present study attempts to clarify the situation. In three experiments, better recall for SPTs than for PTs and for PTs than for VTs were observed if mixed lists were used. If pure lists were used, there was a PT effect but no SPT over PT advantage. The findings were discussed from the perspective of item-specific and relational information.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Differential relational encoding of categorical information in memory for action events

Memory for action phrases is better if the actions are enacted in subject-performed tasks (SPTs) than if they are only listened to in verbal tasks (VTs). This effect is ascribed to better item-specific encoding of SPTs than of VTs. The role of interitem relational information is controversial, and the findings of clustering with categorically structured lists are inconsistent (see Engelkamp, 1998). The present study contributes to clarifying these effects by demonstrating that intentional relational encoding can be used more efficiently in VTs than in SPTs and influences the degree of clustering. If the list structure is not obvious, inducing intentional encoding by presenting the category labels prior to list presentation and asking subjects to use this preinformation increases clustering in VTs but not in SPTs. Without preinformation, clustering scores of VTs and SPTs did not differ, with preinformation, clustering of VTs was stronger than that of SPTs. The authors suggest how the inconsistent findings with regard to clustering effects can be explained.     

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.     

Effects of testing on subsequent re‐encoding and long‐term forgetting of action‐relevant materials: On the influence of recall type

Testing one's memory of previously studied information reduces the rate of forgetting, compared to restudy. However, little is known about how this direct testing effect applies to action phrases (e.g., “wash the car”) – a learning material relevant to everyday memory. As action phrases consist of two different components, a verb (e.g., “wash”) and a noun (e.g., “car”), testing can either be implemented as noun‐cued recall of verbs or verb‐cued recall of nouns, which may differently affect later memory performance. In the present study, we investigated the effect of testing for these two recall types, using verbally encoded action phrases as learning materials. Results showed that repeated study–test practice, compared to repeated study–restudy practice, decreased the forgetting rate across 1 week to a similar degree for both noun‐cued and verb‐cued recall types. However, noun‐cued recall of verbs initiated more new subsequent learning during the first restudy, compared to verb‐cued recall of nouns. The study provides evidence that testing has benefits on both subsequent restudy and long‐term retention of action‐relevant materials, but that these benefits are differently expressed with testing via noun‐cued versus verb‐cued recall.     

Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks

What is the nature of the representation underlying memory for future tasks such as calling the doctor or buying milk? If this representation consists of a verbal instruction that is translated into action at the time of retrieval, then memory should be better when tested via verbatim recall of the instruction than when tested via actual performance. Three experiments rejected this possibility, indicating better memory for a perform mode of report than for a recall mode of report. This was true in Experiment 1 in which subjects saw a series of verbal instructions (e.g., “move the eraser,” “lift the cup,” “touch the ashtray”), with advance information regarding the mode of report required during testing. In Experiment 2, the advance cue was valid only in 75% of the trials. Memory depended more heavily on the expected mode of report thanon the actual mode ofreport, suggesting that the perform superiority is due to processes that occur during encoding. In Experiment 3, subjects learned 20 phrases depicting minitasks were remembered by subjects tested via performance than by subjects tested via verbatim recall. A second part of Experiment 3 also indicated superior memory when a perform test was expected, regardless of which mode of report was actually required. The results were compared with the finding that subject-performed tasks are better remembered thanare their verbal instructions, which suggeststhat the representation underlying memory for future assignments-may-take advantage of the imaginal-enactive properties ofthe envisagedacts. Other possible differences between memory for to-be-recalled tasks and memory for to-be-performed tasks are discussed.     

Humour mediates the facilitative effect of bizarreness in delayed recall

The first empirical study focused exclusively on the influence of bizarre elaboration on memory ( Delin, 1968 ) indicated a significant relationship between bizarreness and recall after a 15‐week delay. However, that study was strongly criticized on methodological grounds. The present study offers a conceptual replication of Delin's historically significant study which sought to verify his influential, yet criticized, results and to test the possibility that a humour response mediates the relationship between bizarre elaboration and recall using multiple regression procedures. In keeping with Delin's findings, the results of the present study suggest that bizarre elaboration facilitates both free and cued recall after a substantial delay. The results also suggest that the facilitative effects of bizarreness are mediated by humour. The findings are discussed in the context of a comprehensive theory of bizarreness effects.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

Free recall accuracy for common and bizarre verbal information

A large body of empirical research suggests better free recall for bizarre than common verbal information; however, the bulk of those studies used a method that does not consider the contextual and relational accuracy of recovered memories. The conclusions drawn from that research therefore are based on tests of memory not for holistic stimuli but for decontextualized memory fragments. In response to this anomaly and recent findings suggesting that bizarre memories are more likely to be distorted than common memories, a holistic analysis of free recall for common and bizarre verbal material was conducted. Two experiments indicated that bizarreness both facilitates and disrupts recall. Specifically, better recall (both in part and in full) was found for bizarre information, but a greater tendency to merge bizarre memory fragments into other partially recovered memories was also found. This pattern of results was demonstrated under immediate and delayed testing conditions (Experiment 1) and using both incidental and intentional learning procedures (Experiment 2). Overall, the results are consistent with a weak account of disruption caused by bizarreness.     

Memory for common and bizarre stimuli: A storage-retrieval analysis

We tested the hypothesis that common stimuli are stored in memory better than bizarre stimuli are. Subjects memorized a series of noun pairs embedded within 20 common or bizarre sentences. By using a between-list design, free and cued recall, and intentional-learning instructions, we were able to obtain a commonness effect (i.e., a recall advantage for the common sentences). Riefer and Rouder’s (1992) multinomial processing-tree model for measuring storage and retrieval was applied to the data, which revealed that the recall advantage for common sentences was due to storage and not retrieval processes. We propose a two-factor theory: that common items are stored better in memory, but that bizarre items are retrieved better from memory. This storage-retrieval explanation does a good job of accounting for a number of findings associated with the bizarreness effect.     

主题关系对无线索回忆再认效应的影响

本研究采用RWCR范式,从无线索回忆再认的视角考察了主题关系对熟悉性的影响。结果发现,主题关系能够引发无线索回忆再认效应。具体表现为,在回忆错误项目中,被试对与学过项目有主题关系线索的熟悉性评分显著高于与学过项目无主题关系线索的熟悉性评分。这一结果表明,个体在信息提取失败时,概念形式的语义信息也能引发基于熟悉性的再认判断。