Positive and negative generation effects,hypermnesia, and total recall time

Self-generated information is typically remembered better than perceived information (the generation effect). Experimental design produces an important limiting condition for this effect: Generation enhances recall in within-subjects designs, but typically not in between-subjects designs. However, Mulligan (2001) found that the generation effect emerged over repeated recall tests in a between-subjects design, calling into question the generality of this limiting condition. Two experiments further delineated the emergent generation effect Experiment 1 demonstrated that this effect does not require multiple discrete recall tests but may emerge on a single recall test of long duration. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the negative generation effect (a reversal of the typical generation effect produced under certain conditions) is abolished by multiple recall tests. In both experiments, the generate condition produced greater hypemnesia (increased recall over tests) than did the read condition.     

Generation and hypermnesia

The multifactor account of the generation effect makes detailed predictions about the effects of generation on item-specific and relational encoding, predictions confirmed in four experiments using a multiple-test methodology. In pure-list designs with unrelated study items, generation produced more interest item gains (indexing greater item-specific processing) and more interest item losses (indexing less relational processing) relative to the read condition. In a mixed-list design, generation produced more gains but did not affect losses. With categorically-related study items, generation produced more gains but fewer losses (indicating enhanced relational encoding). Generation consistently produced hypermnesia whereas reading did so only for related study items. Also, a significant generation effect emerged on later tests under conditions (between-subjects design, unrelated study items) which typically yield no generation effect.     

Hypermnesia and total retrieval time

Recall performance sometimes improves over repeated recall attempts, a phenomenon dubbed hypermnesia. A critical theoretical issue is whether hypermnesia is due to repeated testing per se or increased retrieval time. The present experiments investigated by contrasting five testing conditions. All participants were presented with the same study list followed by either two shorter recall tests or a single longer test. In the multiple test conditions, the tests were either separated by a (filled) 7-minute interval (the multiple-split condition), or presented consecutively, with no break (the multiple-immediate condition). In the single test conditions, the test either began at the start of the recall session, after a (filled) 7-minute delay, or with a 7-minute interruption inserted in the middle. The multiple-split condition produced more reminiscence and hypermnesia than the multiple-immediate condition. More importantly, the multiple-split condition produced greater cumulative recall than any of the other conditions (which did not differ among themselves). That is, single and repeated recall tests of equal total duration are not functionally equivalent.     

Hypermnesia and total retrieval time

Recall performance sometimes improves over repeated recall attempts, a phenomenon dubbed hypermnesia. A critical theoretical issue is whether hypermnesia is due to repeated testing per se or increased retrieval time. The present experiments investigated by contrasting five testing conditions. All participants were presented with the same study list followed by either two shorter recall tests or a single longer test. In the multiple test conditions, the tests were either separated by a (filled) 7-minute interval (the multiple-split condition), or presented consecutively, with no break (the multiple-immediate condition). In the single test conditions, the test either began at the start of the recall session, after a (filled) 7-minute delay, or with a 7-minute interruption inserted in the middle. The multiple-split condition produced more reminiscence and hypermnesia than the multiple-immediate condition. More importantly, the multiple-split condition produced greater cumulative recall than any of the other conditions (which did not differ among themselves). That is, single and repeated recall tests of equal total duration are not functionally equivalent.     

Hypermnesia occurs in recall but not in recognition

Two experiments investigated the effect of encoding conditions and type of test (recall vs. recognition) on the phenomenon of hypermnesia (improved performance across repeated tests). Subjects in Experiment 1 studied a list of words using either imaginal or semantic elaboration strategies and then received three successive tests. Different groups of subjects received either free recall, four-alternative forced-choice recognition, or yes/no recognition tests. Reliable hypermnesia was found only in the recall conditions, with the recognition conditions showing either no change in performance levels across tests (forced-choice tests) or significant forgetting (yes/no tests). In Experiment 2, subjects studied a list of words, and encoding was manipulated using three orienting tasks. Once again, hypermnesia was found with the recall tests but not with the forced choice recognition tests. Finding hypermnesia in recall but not in recognition indicates that retrieval processes in recall play a major role in producing hypermnesia. Also, the finding that the magnitude of the recall hypermnesias increased with an increase in total cumulative recall levels across study conditions suggests that cumulative recall levels are an important factor in determining the presence or absence of recall hypermnesia.     

The emergence of item-specific encoding effects in between-subjects designs: perceptual interference and multiple recall tests

The perceptual-interference effect occurs when interference with word perception (by backward masking) enhances later memory for the word. In terms of the item-specific-relational framework (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993), this effect is similar to other manipulations that enhance item-specific encoding (such as the generation effect). One similarity is that item-specific effects typically do not arise in between-subjects designs. However, the present experiment demonstrates that a between-subjects perceptual-interference effect emerges over multiple recall tests. Furthermore, perceptual interference produces both more intertest gains (indexing enhanced item-specific processing) and more intertest losses (indexing disrupted relational encoding) compared with the intact (control) condition. Finally, delaying the mask to a point at which it no longer interferes with perception (266 msec) eliminates both the perceptual-interference recall advantage and the increase in intertest gains. This condition still produces more intertest losses, however. Together, these results imply that a delayed mask disrupts relational encoding but produces no item-specific enhancement, dissociating the two effects of the perceptual-interference manipulation.     

Hypermnesia for high-imagery words: The effects of interpolated tasks

The purpose of this study was to determine whether hypermnesia (improved net recall over time) can be differentially affected by manipulating the nature of tasks performed during the intervals between successive recall trials. In Experiment 1, all subjects were asked to imaginally encode separate words and were tested three times for recall. The control group (no interpolated task) produced the hypermnesia effect. Both groups performing interpolated tasks showed significantly lower recall. A second experiment was conducted in order to replicate these results and to examine the effects of intertest rehearsal on hypermnesia. In Experiment 2, subjects were asked to encode pairs of words using interactive-imagery instructions. Six different interpolated task conditions were employed, varying in the degree to which subsystems of working memory were used. Groups performing imaginal interpolated tasks showed no hypermnesia, whereas those performing nonimaginal tasks did. These findings suggest that access to working memory (see Baddeley, 1986) is not necessary for hypermnesia.     

Selective disruption of hypermnesia for pictures and words

In this study, we investigated the effects of various interpolated tasks on hypermnesia (improved recall across repeated tests) for pictures and words. In five experiments, subjects studied either pictures or words and then completed two free-recall tests, with varying activities interpolated between the tests. The tasks performed between tests were varied to test several hypotheses concerning the possible factor(s) responsible for disruption of the hypermnesic effect. In each experiment, hypermnesia was obtained in a control condition in which there was no interpolated task between tests. The remaining conditions showed that the effect of the interpolated tasks was related to the overlap of the cognitive processes involved in encoding the target items and performing the interpolated tasks. When pictures were used as the target items, no hypermnesia was obtained when subjects engaged in imaginal processing interpolated tasks, even when these tasks involved materials that were very distinct from the target items. When words were used as the target items, no hypermnesia was obtained when the interpolated tasks required verbal/linguistic processing, even when the items used in these tasks were auditorily presented. The results are discussed in terms of a strength-based model of associative memory.     

Total retrieval time and hypermnesia: Investigating the benefits of multiple recall tests

Hypermnesia is an increase in recall over repeated tests. A core issue is the role of repeated testing, per se, versus total retrieval time. Prior research implies an equivalence between multiple recall tests and a single test of equal total duration, but theoretical analyses indicate otherwise. Three experiments investigated this issue using various study materials (unrelated word lists, related word lists, and a short story). In the first experimental session, the study phase was followed by a series of short recall tests or by a single, long test of equal total duration. Two days later, participants took a final recall test. The multiple and single test conditions produced equivalent performance in the first session, but the multiple test group exhibited less forgetting and fewer item losses in the final test. In a fourth experiment, using a brief delay (15 min) between the recall sessions, the multiple recall condition produced greater hypermnesia as well as fewer item losses. In addition, final recall was significantly higher in the multiple than in the single test condition in three of the four experiments. Thus, single and repeated recall tests of equal total duration are not functionally equivalent, but rather produce differences observable in subsequent recall tests.     

Hypermnesia and the Role of Delay between Study and Test

Hypermnesia is increased recall across repeated tests in the absence of any further study opportunities. Although over the years many factors have been identified that influence hypermnesia, to date not much is known about the role of delay between study and test for the effect. This study addressed the issue in four experiments. Employing both words and pictures as study material, we compared hypermnesia after shorter delay (3 min or 11.5 min) and longer delay (24 h or 1 week) between study and test. Recall occurred over three successive tests, using both free recall (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) and forced recall testing (Experiment 3). In forced recall tests, subjects are instructed to recall as many items as possible, but if unable to remember all studied items, to fill in the remaining spaces with their best guesses. With free recall testing, hypermnesia increased with delay and the effect was driven mainly by reduced item losses between tests. These results suggest a link between hypermnesia and the testing effect, which shows that demanding retrieval practice, as it happens after longer delay, can improve recall by reducing the forgetting of the practiced items. In contrast, with forced recall testing, hypermnesia decreased with delay and was even absent after longer delay. The findings indicate that recall format can influence hypermnesia and different mechanisms may mediate the effects of repeated testing in the two recall conditions.     

The generation effect extended: Memory enhancement for generation cues

The generation effect is the greater memorability of a response that is actively produced (e.g., in answering a question from memory) than one that is more passively produced (as in reading the answer). The present three experiments addressed a question that is critical to the theoretical interpretation of the generation effect: Is memory enhanced for the cues that are used to elicit generated responses? Using incidental learning procedures, Experiments 1 and 2 gave an affirmative answer (although the effect was substantially weaker than the generation effect for responses). Enhancement of memory for generation cues was observed both in a within-subject/within-list design (reading and generation items within the same trial blocks; Experiment 1) and in a between-subjects design (reading and generation tasks for different groups of subjects; Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, memory enhancement for generation cues was used to produce a previously unobtained result—a generation effect for nonsense responses under incidental learning conditions. These findings provide critical evidence required by theories that interpret the generation effect in terms of enhanced processing of the cue-response item.     

Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: A puzzle for generate/recognize theories

Subjects studied a mixed list of 70 words that varied in imagery value and then received three successive tests. Also varied were instructions given to subjects prior to list presentation (imagery or semantic rehearsal) and the type of recall test (standard free recall, an uninhibited-recall procedure in which subjects were encouraged to free associate and to guess while recalling the list, and a forced-recall condition in which they were also told to write a large number of responses to fill the allotted spaces). Recall improved across the three tests in all conditions, but the improvement was greater for high-than for low-imagery words. In addition, hypermnesia (the improved recall across tests) was shown to occur following semantic rehearsal instructions as well as imagery instructions and to occur with low-imagery words, contrary to the imagery hypothesis of the effect. Most importantly, the large variation in recall criterion produced by manipulating instructions at test (as measured by intrusions) did not affect the overall level of correct recall or the magnitude of improvements across tests. Apparently, the assumption of generate-recognize theories that people generate much more information in free recall than they produce (due to a stringent criterion for recognition of the generated material) is false.     

Assessing a retrieval account of the generation and perceptual-interference effects

A number of memory phenomena are modulated by experimental design, with the effect (e.g., of bizarreness, generation, or perceptual interference) occurring in recall for mixed-list, but not pure-list designs. These effects have other similarities and have been treated in common theoretical frameworks, some focusing on encoding and others on retrieval. The typical paradigm for examining design effects confounds encoding and retrieval contexts, making it difficult to compare these accounts. Using a new paradigm, McDaniel, Dornburg, and Guynn (2005) concluded that retrieval processes contribute to the bizarreness effect. We applied this paradigm to the related perceptual-interference and generation effects. Participants were presented with two pure study lists and later recalled the lists separately (inducing pure retrieval sets) or together (inducing a combined or mixed retrieval set) in a single test. In four experiments, the combined recall condition consistently failed to enhance the size of the generation or perceptual-interference effect. Two additional experiments verified that perceptual interference and generation enhanced recognition memory, as predicted by the standard encoding accounts. The results provide no support for the retrieval account of these two variables but generally are consistent with an encoding locus.     

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.     

Degree of learning,interpolated tests,and rate of forgetting

The purpose of the two experiments reported here was to observe the effects of degree of learning, interpolated tests, and retention interval, primarily on the rate of forgetting of a list of words, and secondarily on hypermnesia for those words. In the first experiment, all the subjects had one study trial on a list of 20 common words, followed by two tests of recall. Half of the subjects had further study and test trials until they had learned the words to a criterion of three correct consecutive recalls. Two days later, half of the subjects under each learning condition returned for four retention tests, and 16 days later, all the subjects returned for four tests. Experiment 2 was similar, except that all the subjects had at least three study trials followed by four recall tests on Day 1, intermediate tests were given 2 or 7 days later, and they all had final tests 14 days later. The results showed that rate of forgetting was attenuated by an additional intermediate set of tests but not by criterion learning. Hypermnesia was generally found over the tests that were given after a retention interval of 2 or more days. The best predictor of the amount of hypermnesia over a set of tests was the difference between overall cumulative recall and net recall on the first test of the set.     

Classification accuracy across multiple tests following item method directed forgetting

We investigated recall of line-drawing pictures paired at study with an instruction either to remember (TBR items) or to forget (TBF items). Across three 7-minute tests, net recall (items reported independent of accuracy in instructional designation) and correctly classified recall (recall conditional on correct instructional designation) showed directed forgetting. That is, for both measures, recall of TBR items always exceeded recall of TBF items. Net recall for both item types increased across tests at comparable levels showing hypermnesia. However, across tests, correct classification of both item types decreased at comparable levels. Collectively, hypermnesia as measured by net recall is possible for items from multiple sets, but at the cost of accurate source information.     

Classification accuracy across multiple tests following item method directed forgetting

We investigated recall of line-drawing pictures paired at study with an instruction either to remember (TBR items) or to forget (TBF items). Across three 7-minute tests, net recall (items reported independent of accuracy in instructional designation) and correctly classified recall (recall conditional on correct instructional designation) showed directed forgetting. That is, for both measures, recall of TBR items always exceeded recall of TBF items. Net recall for both item types increased across tests at comparable levels showing hypermnesia. However, across tests, correct classification of both item types decreased at comparable levels. Collectively, hypermnesia as measured by net recall is possible for items from multiple sets, but at the cost of accurate source information.     

Effects of orienting tasks on sentence comprehension and cued recall

In three experiments, cued recall of sentences was found to vary with the type of orienting task performed during sentence presentation. Retrieval cues referred to information probably inferred from the sentences. Each of the semantic tasks led to greater recall than did the nonsernantic task; this task effect occurred in a between-subjects design and in a within-subjects design. Furthermore, the use of a task-indicating signal after each sentence, in the within-subjects design, allowed the manipulation of the timing and type of orienting task. The task effect on recall appeared even with a delay of the task-indicating signal and/or the addition of an initial semantic task (performed prior to the indicated task). The findings suggest both a processing explanation and an interruption explanation of task effects.     

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.     

The negative generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon

In four experiments employing between-list designs, generation was found to have negative effects on free recall of word pairs and on cued recall of the second word. In addition, generation had negative effects on measures of word-pair integration and on clustering in recall. In contrast, positive effects of generation were found on free recall of second words alone, and on a recognition test for memory of the second word. It was concluded that in between-list designs, generation led to greater individual-item processing of the generated term than reading, but this processing occurred at the expense of processing the relation between the words in a pair and processing the relations between different pairs in a list.