PSYCH> Vol.2 No.5, August 2011
Views: 3,170    Downloads: 909

Employment of a Multi-measure Approach as a Vehicle for Monitoring Encoding and Retrieval Dynamics: The Case of Semantically Related Words

DownloadDownload as PDF (Size:216KB) Full-Text HTML PP. 460-471   DOI: 10.4236/psych.2011.25072

ABSTRACT

Several recent studies have indicated that retrieval, unlike encoding, is only minimally affected by dividing attention, but is associated with significant secondary task costs. The reported experiment manipulated the strength of pre-experimental semantic associations, using a cued-recall paradigm and a multi-measure approach. This allowed the assessment of accuracy and latency of retrievals, as well as of overall attentional costs and the temporal distribution of attentional costs incurred by these retrievals. By simultaneously inspecting the different measures, we identified a common set of retrieval types and retrieval components. The results presented different patterns for semantically related or un-related words under full or divided attention as a function of the dependent measure used. The results emphasize the advantage of using multi-measure approach to the uncovering of different properties of cognitive processes.

KEYWORDS


Cite this paper

Guez, J. & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2011). Employment of a Multi-measure Approach as a Vehicle for Monitoring Encoding and Retrieval Dynamics: The Case of Semantically Related Words. Psychology, 2, 460-471. doi: 10.4236/psych.2011.25072.

References

[1] Anderson, N. D., Craik, F. I. M., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (1998). The attentional demands of encoding and retrieval in younger and older adults: I. Evidence from divided attention costs. Psychology and Aging, 13, 405-423. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.3.405
[2] Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., & Thomson, N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 13, 518-540. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.518
[3] Balgur, R. (1968). List of basic words for school. Israel: Otsar Hamoreh.
[4] Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
[5] Carrier, M. L., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1339
[6] Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159-180. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159
[7] Dosher, B. A. (1981). The effects of delay and interference: A speed-accuracy study. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 551-582. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90020-7
[8] Dosher, B. A. (1984). Discriminating preexperimental (semantic) from learned (episodic)associations: A speed-accuracy study. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 519-555. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(84)90019-7
[9] Dosher, B. A., & Rosedale, G. (1991). Judgments of semantic and episodic relatedness: Common time-course and failure of segregation. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 125-160. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90001-Z
[10] Danker, J. D. & Anderson, J. R. (2010). The Ghosts of Brain States Past: Remembering Reactivates the Brain Regions Engaged During Encoding. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 87-102. doi:10.1037/a0017937
[11] Gardiner, J. M., and Java, R. I. (1993). Recognizing and remembering. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris (Eds.). Theories of Memory,. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
[12] Griffith, D. (1976). The attentional demands of mnemonic control processes. Memory and Cognition, 4, 103-108. doi:10.3758/BF03213261
[13] Guez, J. & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2006). Divided Attention at Encoding and Retrieval for Once- and Thrice-Presented Items: A Micro-Level Analysis of Attentional Costs. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18 (6), 874-898. doi:10.1080/09541440500485854
[14] Guynn, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1999). Generate – Sometimes recognized, sometimes not. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 398-415. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2652
[15] Henik, A., & Kaplan, L. (1988). Categories content: Findings regarding Hebrew categories and comparison to U.S. finding. Psychology, 1, 104-112.
[16] Herrmann, D. J., & McGuighlan, J. P. (1974). Recognition latency for a subjectively organized list. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 888-889. doi:10.1037/h0036342
[17] Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1-18. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1001
[18] Hintzman, D. L., & Caulton, D. A. (1997). Recognition memory and modality judgments: A comparison of retrieval dynamics. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 1-23. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2511
[19] Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513-541. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F
[20] Jacoby, L. L. (1998). Invariance in automatic influences of memory: Toward a user’s guide for the process-dissociation procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 3-26. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.1.3
[21] Johnston, W. A., Greenberg, S. N., Fisher, R. P., & Martin, D. W. (1970). Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 164-171. doi:10.1037/h0028554
[22] Johnston, W. A., Griffith, D., & Wagstaff, R. R. (1972). Speed, accuracy, and ease of recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 512-520. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80034-3
[23] Johnston, W. A., & Uhl, C. N. (1976). The contributions of encoding effort and variability to the spacing effect on free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2, 153-160.
[24] Kolers, P. A. (1973). Remembering operations. Memory and Cognition, 1, 347-355. doi:10.3758/BF03198119
[25] McElree, B., & Dosher, B.A. (1993). Serial retrieval processes in the recovery of order information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 291-315. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.291
[26] Mishkin, M., & Appenzeller, T. (1987). The anatomy of memory. Scientific American, 256, 80-89. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0687-80
[27] Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
[28] Moscovitch, M. (1992). Memory and working-with-memory: A component process model based on modules and central systems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 257-267. doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.257
[29] Murdock, B. B. Jr. (1965). Effects of a subsidiary task on short-term memory. British Journal of Psychology, 56, 413-419. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1965.tb00983.x
[30] Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., & Ben-Shaul, L. (2002). Age- related differences in cued recall: Effects of support at encoding and retrieval. Aging, Neuropsychology & Cognition, 9, 276-287. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1091
[31] Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J. & Dori, H. (1998). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: Further support for an asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1091-1104. doi:10.3758/BF03209344
[32] Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Gavrilescu, D., & Anderson, N. D. (2000a). Asymmetry between encoding and retrieval processes: Evidence from divided attention and a calibration analysis. Memory and Cognition, 28, 965-976. doi:10.1080/027249800410454
[33] Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Perretta, J. G., & Tonev, S. T. (2000b). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 609-625. doi:10.1080/027249800410454
[34] Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Guez, J. (2000). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: Assessment of attentional costs and a componential analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1461-1482. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1461
[35] Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychologist, 45, 1043-1056. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1043
[36] Roediger, H. L., Gallo, D. A., & Geraci, L. (2002). Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory, 10, 319-332. doi:10.1080/09658210224000144
[37] Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
[38] Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373. doi:10.1037/h0020071
[39] Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.