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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Metamemory for words and enacted instructions: Predicting which items will be recalled

Subjects can predict, during word list acquisition, which items they will subsequently recall. When the list items are subject-performed tasks (SPTs), recall prediction is totally inaccurate. Delaying the rating of recall probability (actually, trace strength rating) until list acquisition was complete did not affect the accuracy of the ratings. Word recall was predictable; SPT recall was not. When encoding was systematically manipulated, the effects of the manipulations on recall were accompanied by parallel effects on the strength ratings for SPTs, as well as for words. Several explanations for the data are discussed, the most probable being that of a mismatch between those characteristics of the SPTs that underlie strength ratings and those that determine recall.     

Pop-out into memory: a retrieval mechanism that is enhanced with the recall of subject-performed tasks

Subject-performed tasks (SPTs; i.e., carrying out the actions during study) improve free recall of action phrases without enhancing relational information. By this mechanism, items pop into a person's mind without active search, and this process especially extends the recency effect. The authors demonstrated the existence of the extended recency effect and its importance for the SPT recall advantage (Experiments 1 and 2). Carrying out the action and not semantic processing caused the effect (Experiment 3). The extended recency effect was also not a consequence of a deliberate last-in, first-out strategy (Experiment 4), and performing a difficult secondary task (an arithmetic task) during recall reduced memory performances but did not influence the extended recency effect (Experiment 5). These data support the theory that performing actions during study enhances the efficiency of an automatic pop-out mechanism in free recall.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

Effects of word frequency on individual-item and serial order retention: Tests of the order-encoding view

The order-encoding view of the word frequency effect proposes that low-frequency (LF) items attract more attention to the encoding of individual-item information than do high-frequency (HF) items, but at the expense of order encoding (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). When combined with the assumption that free recall of unrelated words is organized according to their original order of presentation, this view explains the finding that HF words are better recalled than LF words in pure lists but that, in mixed lists, recall is better for LF words. The present study confirmed that in mixed lists, order memory becomes equivalent for HF and LF words and that the predicted pattern of order memory and recall holds fo r incidental order-encoding conditions, for longerlists than those used inprevious experiments, and for lists with minimal interitem associativity. Moreover, recall from HF lists declined, but recall from LF lists improved, in related-word lists, relative to unrelated-word lists, reversing the usual pure-list free recall advantage for HF words. These results were uniquely predicted by the order-encoding account and favor this view over accessibility, interitem association, and cuing effectiveness explanations of the word frequency effect.     

Additive and interactive effects in memory for subject-performed tasks

Abstract

Three experiments were carried out to explore reasons for the superior recall and recognition of subject-performed tasks (SPTs) relative to memory for the equivalent verbal commands. In Experiment 1, list structure was varied; list structure affected recall, but the variable did not interact with the SPT/command manipulation. The same absence of an interaction was found in Experiment 2 with respect to different retrieval conditions and also with respect to the age of adult subjects. Experiment 3 confirmed that the age difference was as large for SPTs as it was for verbal commands. In addition, an interaction between SPT/command and levels of processing was found in Experiment 3. Differences between the additive and interactive patterns of results are discussed in terms of SITS contributing both additional (possibly motoric) information and also conceptual information that overlaps with information added by other variables.     

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.     

Retrieval contexts and the concreteness effect: Dissociations in memory for concrete and abstract words

Decades of research on the concreteness effect, namely better memory for concrete as compared with abstract words, suggest it is a fairly robust phenomenon. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to limiting retrieval contexts. Two experiments evaluated intentional memory for concrete and abstract word lists in three retrieval contexts: free recall, explicit word-stem completion, and implicit word-stem completion. Concreteness effects were observed in free recall and in explicit word-stem completion, but not in implicit word-stem completion. These findings are consistent with both a bidirectional version of the relational-distinctiveness processing framework (Ruiz-Vargas, Cuevas, & Marschark, 1996) and a second framework combining insights from dual coding theory (Paivio, 1971, 1986) and the transfer appropriate processing framework (Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989). Also, consistent with the relational-distinctiveness framework, the second experiment suggested that concreteness effects might depend on relational processing at encoding: Concreteness effects were observed in explicit memory for related word lists but not for unrelated word lists.     

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.     

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.     

Age-related differences in guessing on free and forced recall tests

This study examined possible age-related differences in recall, guessing, and metacognition on free recall tests and forced recall tests. Participants studied categorised and unrelated word lists and were asked to recall the items under one of the following test conditions: standard free recall, free recall with a penalty for guessing, free recall with no penalty for guessing, or forced recall. The results demonstrated interesting age differences regarding the impact of liberal test instructions (i.e., forced recall and no penalty) relative to more conservative test instructions (i.e., standard free recall and penalty) on memory performance. Specifically, once guessing was controlled, younger adults’ recall of categorised lists varied in accordance with test instructions while older adults’ recall of categorised lists did not differ between conservative and liberal test instructions, presumably because older adults approach standard free recall tests of categorised lists with a greater propensity towards guessing than young adults.