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.     

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.     

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.     

Bizarreness effects in verbal tasks and subject-performed tasks

Abstract

Recognition and cued recall of ordinary action phrases (e.g. “open the book”) and bizarre ones (e.g. “plant the hammer”) were compared under two encoding conditions: in verbal tasks (VTs), subjects learned the phrases by simply listening to them; in subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects learned the phrases by performing the denoted actions (without real objects). Memory performance was better after SPTs than after VTs in recognition and cued recall. In addition to this already established finding, it was observed that recognition was better for bizarre phrases than for ordinary ones after VTs and that bizarreness was unrelated to recognition after SPTs. Cued recall, on the other hand, depended on bizarreness after VTs as well as after SPTs and, in contrast to the recognition findings, ordinary phrases were recalled better than bizarre phrases. This pattern of findings was explained by the assumptions that lexical and conceptual information is encoded after VTs and motor information is additionally encoded after SPTs, and that different kinds of information are used in recognition and cued recall, and after VTs and SPTs.     

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.     

Memory for actions: Enactment and source memory

Enacting simple action phrases enhances item memory but may not enhance other aspects of memory. The present experiment examines the effects of enactment on source memory. During the study phase, participants performed some actions (subject-performed tasks, SPTs) and observed the experimenter perform other actions (experimenter-performed tasks, EPTs). One group performed the SPTs with eyes closed, one group with eyes open (the standard condition), and one group performed SPTs facing a mirror (EPT presentation was constant across groups). As expected, item memory was better for SPTs than for EPTs. More importantly, source memory for SPTs was affected by the amount of visual feedback. As predicted by the source-monitoring framework, source memory for SPTs decreased as the amount of visual feedback increased from none (eyes closed) to moderate (standard condition) to maximal (mirror condition). In addition, SPT encoding failed to increase source memory and in one condition actually decreased source memory, relative to EPT encoding. Thus, enactment dissociated item and source memory, enhancing the former but not the latter.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for performed tasks

Memory for subject-performed tasks—that is, for simple actions such as lifting a pen, which subjects perform overtly—is better than memory for verbal tasks—that is, when subjects only listen to the action phrases. Here I investigated whether this effect depends on actual performance or whether it also shows up when there is only an intention to perform the task. Koriat, Ben-Zur, and Nussbaum (1990) found that the intention to perform items at test enhanced free recall more than did verbal tasks. Brooks and Gardiner (1994), however, were not able to replicate this finding. In four experiments, I attempted to reconcile this discrepancy by comparing subject-performed tasks, to-beperformed tasks, and verbal tasks under different conditions. The outcome depended on whether a within-subjects design or a between-subjects design was used. In the between-subjects design, memory for subject-performed tasks was better than memory for to-be-performed tasks, and both of these led to better recall performance than did verbal tasks. In a within-subjects design, in contrast, memory for to-be-performed tasks was no different from memory for verbal tasks. These results were independent of whether the test mode was congruent or incongruent. Thus, the discrepant findings of Koriat et al. and of Brooks and Gardiner seem to be due to the design used, pointing to encoding processes as the critical variable. The present results are interpreted to show that actual performance of actions at study provides more information than does only the intention to perform actions at test.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.