Pub Date : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000621
Rachel M Brown, Tanja C Roembke
Learning information may benefit from movement: Items that are spoken aloud are more accurately remembered than items that are silently read (the production effect). Candidate mechanisms for this phenomenon suggest that speaking may enrich or improve the feature content of memory traces, yet research suggests that prior language skill also plays a role. Recent work showed a larger production effect in bilinguals for words in their second language (L2) compared to their first language (L1), potentially suggesting that bilinguals engage different or additional linguistic features when speaking L2 compared to L1 words. The current study examined whether the increased L2 production effect reduces for L2 and L1 pseudowords, which may similarly engage mainly phonological features. German (L1)-English (L2) bilinguals first read (out loud or silently) and subsequently recognized German or English words or pseudowords following German or English phonology. The production effect increased for L2 compared to L1 items and for words compared to pseudowords. Modest evidence suggested L2-L1 similarity in production effect scores for pseudowords, but different L2-L1 scores for words. Integrating feature models of memory with models of bilingual language production, we propose that speaking an L2 may engage more extensive and diverse linguistic features than an L1.
{"title":"Bilingualism Influences How Articulation Enhances Verbal Encoding.","authors":"Rachel M Brown, Tanja C Roembke","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000621","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> Learning information may benefit from movement: Items that are spoken aloud are more accurately remembered than items that are silently read (the <i>production effect</i>). Candidate mechanisms for this phenomenon suggest that speaking may enrich or improve the feature content of memory traces, yet research suggests that prior language skill also plays a role. Recent work showed a larger production effect in bilinguals for words in their <i>second</i> language (L2) compared to their first language (L1), potentially suggesting that bilinguals engage different or additional linguistic features when speaking L2 compared to L1 words. The current study examined whether the increased L2 production effect reduces for L2 and L1 <i>pseudowords</i>, which may similarly engage mainly phonological features. German (L1)-English (L2) bilinguals first read (out loud or silently) and subsequently recognized German or English words or pseudowords following German or English phonology. The production effect increased for L2 compared to L1 items and for words compared to pseudowords. Modest evidence suggested L2-L1 similarity in production effect scores for pseudowords, but different L2-L1 scores for words. Integrating feature models of memory with models of bilingual language production, we propose that speaking an L2 may engage more extensive and diverse linguistic features than an L1.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":"71 2","pages":"122-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142461417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01Epub Date: 2024-09-24DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000620
Sophia H N Tran, Myra A Fernandes
Previous work suggests that similar cognitive processes contribute to memory and comprehension. This is unsurprising as both begin with a common process: encoding. Despite this, the investigation of techniques that benefit memory and comprehension has proceeded separately. In the current study, we compared the robust memory techniques of production and drawing to a similarly effective comprehension strategy known as paraphrasing. Depending on the group, participants were asked to either engage in one of the encoding types (read aloud, draw, or paraphrase) or to silently read 20 term-definition pairs (randomly intermixed and counterbalanced). The encoding techniques of drawing and paraphrasing resulted in better performance on a multiple-choice test of concept comprehension, relative to silently reading. By contrast, reading aloud at encoding did not lead to any benefit relative to silently reading. The results suggest that techniques that invoke transformation of the to-be-remembered text into another format, be it into a picture (drawing) or personally relevant summary (paraphrasing), are particularly effective at improving comprehension. By contrast, encoding techniques that mainly provide a perceptual repetition (production and silent reading) are less effective.
{"title":"Which Encoding Techniques Facilitate Comprehension?","authors":"Sophia H N Tran, Myra A Fernandes","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000620","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000620","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> Previous work suggests that similar cognitive processes contribute to memory and comprehension. This is unsurprising as both begin with a common process: encoding. Despite this, the investigation of techniques that benefit memory and comprehension has proceeded separately. In the current study, we compared the robust memory techniques of production and drawing to a similarly effective comprehension strategy known as paraphrasing. Depending on the group, participants were asked to either engage in one of the encoding types (read aloud, draw, or paraphrase) or to silently read 20 term-definition pairs (randomly intermixed and counterbalanced). The encoding techniques of drawing and paraphrasing resulted in better performance on a multiple-choice test of concept comprehension, relative to silently reading. By contrast, reading aloud at encoding did not lead to any benefit relative to silently reading. The results suggest that techniques that invoke transformation of the to-be-remembered text into another format, be it into a picture (drawing) or personally relevant summary (paraphrasing), are particularly effective at improving comprehension. By contrast, encoding techniques that mainly provide a perceptual repetition (production and silent reading) are less effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":"111-121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142307411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01Epub Date: 2024-09-24DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000618
Victoria A J Kavanagh, Kathleen L Hourihan, William E Hockley
The current study examined whether the benefit of mixed-list production could extend to memory for background contexts using word-background context pairs. Participants studied words presented on background images; words were read aloud or silently. In Experiment 1a, half of the studied items were tested on their studied background image and half were tested on a new image using old-new recognition. Although a production effect in word recognition was observed, context reinstatement had no effect on sensitivity and only a marginal effect on hit rates; it did not interact with production. In Experiment 1b, whether participants encoded the backgrounds and whether that encoding was affected by production was tested using separate recognition tests. A production effect was found in word recognition, but there was no effect in image recognition. Experiment 2 used a cued-recall test, with the studied background images as the cues to directly test whether associations were formed between words and backgrounds at study. A production effect was found but did not interact with the presence of cues during recall. Both the benefit of production and the benefit of context reinstatement appear to be independent of one another, with production not aiding memory for the associations between items nor the context.
{"title":"Does the Effect of Production Influence Memory for Background Context?","authors":"Victoria A J Kavanagh, Kathleen L Hourihan, William E Hockley","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000618","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000618","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> The current study examined whether the benefit of mixed-list production could extend to memory for background contexts using word-background context pairs. Participants studied words presented on background images; words were read aloud or silently. In Experiment 1a, half of the studied items were tested on their studied background image and half were tested on a new image using old-new recognition. Although a production effect in word recognition was observed, context reinstatement had no effect on sensitivity and only a marginal effect on hit rates; it did not interact with production. In Experiment 1b, whether participants encoded the backgrounds and whether that encoding was affected by production was tested using separate recognition tests. A production effect was found in word recognition, but there was no effect in image recognition. Experiment 2 used a cued-recall test, with the studied background images as the cues to directly test whether associations were formed between words and backgrounds at study. A production effect was found but did not interact with the presence of cues during recall. Both the benefit of production and the benefit of context reinstatement appear to be independent of one another, with production not aiding memory for the associations between items nor the context.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":"97-110"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142307409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000599
Kelly Cotton, Joshua Sandry, Timothy J Ricker
Recent changes in environments from in-person to remote present several issues for work, education, and research, particularly related to cognitive performance. Increased distraction in remote environments may lead to increases in mind-wandering and disengagement with tasks at hand, whether virtual meetings, online lectures, or psychological experiments. The present study investigated mind-wandering and multitasking effects during working memory tasks in remote and in-person environments. In two experiments, participants completed a working memory task with varied cognitive load during a secondary task. After each working memory trial, participants reported their mind-wandering during that trial. Some participants completed the procedures in-person, while others completed the procedures remotely. Overall, remote participants reported significantly more mind-wandering and poorer secondary task performance than in-person participants, but this pattern was not reflected in working memory accuracy. Both groups exhibited similar multitasking effects on performance. Additional analyses found that for remote participants, task engagement better predicted working memory performance than either cognitive load or mind-wandering rates but did not indicate a tradeoff in resources between tasks. Together, these results demonstrate the importance of considering multiple metrics when assessing performance and illustrate that making assumptions about the equivalence of remote and in-person work is a risky proposition.
{"title":"The Effects of Mind-Wandering, Cognitive Load, and Task Engagement on Working Memory Performance in Remote Online Experiments.","authors":"Kelly Cotton, Joshua Sandry, Timothy J Ricker","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000599","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000599","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> Recent changes in environments from in-person to remote present several issues for work, education, and research, particularly related to cognitive performance. Increased distraction in remote environments may lead to increases in mind-wandering and disengagement with tasks at hand, whether virtual meetings, online lectures, or psychological experiments. The present study investigated mind-wandering and multitasking effects during working memory tasks in remote and in-person environments. In two experiments, participants completed a working memory task with varied cognitive load during a secondary task. After each working memory trial, participants reported their mind-wandering during that trial. Some participants completed the procedures in-person, while others completed the procedures remotely. Overall, remote participants reported significantly more mind-wandering and poorer secondary task performance than in-person participants, but this pattern was not reflected in working memory accuracy. Both groups exhibited similar multitasking effects on performance. Additional analyses found that for remote participants, task engagement better predicted working memory performance than either cognitive load or mind-wandering rates but did not indicate a tradeoff in resources between tasks. Together, these results demonstrate the importance of considering multiple metrics when assessing performance and illustrate that making assumptions about the equivalence of remote and in-person work is a risky proposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10915650/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139575027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000595
Camille Lallement, Patrick Lemaire
We investigated effects of emotions on arithmetic problem-solving and age-related differences in these effects. Young and older adults verified addition problems displayed superimposed on emotionally negative, positive, or neutral pictures. Participants obtained poorer performance in emotion than in neutral conditions, with stronger interference by negative than positive emotions. Also, participants were more impaired by negative emotions while solving true problems than false problems, whereas they were influenced by positive emotions similarly on true and false problems. Interestingly, effects of both positive and negative emotions were comparable in young and older adults. These findings have important implications for further understanding how negative and positive emotions influence arithmetic problem-solving.
{"title":"Are There Age-Related Differences in Effects of Positive and Negative Emotions in Arithmetic?","authors":"Camille Lallement, Patrick Lemaire","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000595","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> We investigated effects of emotions on arithmetic problem-solving and age-related differences in these effects. Young and older adults verified addition problems displayed superimposed on emotionally negative, positive, or neutral pictures. Participants obtained poorer performance in emotion than in neutral conditions, with stronger interference by negative than positive emotions. Also, participants were more impaired by negative emotions while solving true problems than false problems, whereas they were influenced by positive emotions similarly on true and false problems. Interestingly, effects of both positive and negative emotions were comparable in young and older adults. These findings have important implications for further understanding how negative and positive emotions influence arithmetic problem-solving.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139574982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000597
Mrudula Arunkumar, Klaus Rothermund, Carina G Giesen
A conditioned response to a stimulus can be transferred to an associated stimulus, as seen in sensory preconditioning. In this research paper, we aimed to explore this phenomenon using a stimulus-response contingency learning paradigm using voluntary actions as responses. We conducted two preregistered experiments that explored whether a learned response can be indirectly activated by a stimulus (S1) that was never directly paired with the response itself. Importantly, S1 was previously associated with another stimulus (S2) that was then directly and contingently paired with a response (S2-R contingency). In Experiment 1a, an indirect activation of acquired stimulus-response contingencies was present for audiovisual stimulus pairs wherein the stimulus association resembled a vocabulary learning setup. This result was replicated in Experiment 1b. Additionally, we found that the effect is moderated by having conscious awareness of the S1-S2 association and the S2-R contingency. By demonstrating indirect activation effects for voluntary actions, our findings show that principles of Pavlovian conditioning like sensory preconditioning also apply to contingency learning of stimulus-response relations for operant behavior.
{"title":"One Link to Link Them All.","authors":"Mrudula Arunkumar, Klaus Rothermund, Carina G Giesen","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000597","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000597","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> A conditioned response to a stimulus can be transferred to an associated stimulus, as seen in sensory preconditioning. In this research paper, we aimed to explore this phenomenon using a stimulus-response contingency learning paradigm using voluntary actions as responses. We conducted two preregistered experiments that explored whether a learned response can be indirectly activated by a stimulus (S1) that was never directly paired with the response itself. Importantly, S1 was previously associated with another stimulus (S2) that was then directly and contingently paired with a response (S2-R contingency). In Experiment 1a, an indirect activation of acquired stimulus-response contingencies was present for audiovisual stimulus pairs wherein the stimulus association resembled a vocabulary learning setup. This result was replicated in Experiment 1b. Additionally, we found that the effect is moderated by having conscious awareness of the S1-S2 association and the S2-R contingency. By demonstrating indirect activation effects for voluntary actions, our findings show that principles of Pavlovian conditioning like sensory preconditioning also apply to contingency learning of stimulus-response relations for operant behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10918695/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139575017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000614
Jedidiah W Whitridge, Mark J Huff, Jason D Ozubko, Paul C Bürkner, Chelsea D Lahey, Jonathan M Fawcett
The production effect refers to the finding that words read aloud are better remembered than words read silently. This finding is typically attributed to the presence of additional sensorimotor features appended to the memory trace by the act of reading aloud, which are not present for items read silently. Supporting this perspective, the production effect tends to be larger for singing (the singing superiority effect) than reading aloud, possibly due to the inclusion of further sensorimotor features (e.g., more pronounced tone). However, the singing superiority effect has not always replicated. Across four experiments, we demonstrate a production effect for items read aloud but observe a singing superiority effect only when items are tested in the same color in which they were studied (with foils randomized to color). A series of meta-analytic models revealed the singing superiority effect to be smaller than previously thought and to emerge only when test items are presented in the same color in which they were studied. This outcome is inconsistent with common distinctiveness-based theoretical accounts.
{"title":"Singing Does Not Necessarily Improve Memory More Than Reading Aloud.","authors":"Jedidiah W Whitridge, Mark J Huff, Jason D Ozubko, Paul C Bürkner, Chelsea D Lahey, Jonathan M Fawcett","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000614","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> The <i>production effect</i> refers to the finding that words read aloud are better remembered than words read silently. This finding is typically attributed to the presence of additional sensorimotor features appended to the memory trace by the act of reading aloud, which are not present for items read silently. Supporting this perspective, the production effect tends to be larger for singing (the <i>singing superiority effect</i>) than reading aloud, possibly due to the inclusion of further sensorimotor features (e.g., more pronounced tone). However, the singing superiority effect has not always replicated. Across four experiments, we demonstrate a production effect for items read aloud but observe a singing superiority effect only when items are tested in the same color in which they were studied (with foils randomized to color). A series of meta-analytic models revealed the singing superiority effect to be smaller than previously thought and to emerge only when test items are presented in the same color in which they were studied. This outcome is inconsistent with common distinctiveness-based theoretical accounts.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":"71 1","pages":"33-50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141792290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-01Epub Date: 2024-07-02DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000609
Jean Saint-Aubin, Marie Poirier, James M Yearsley, Dominic Guitard
In the verbal domain, it is well established that words read aloud are better remembered than their silently read counterparts. It has been hypothesized that this production effect stems from the addition of distinctive features, with the caveat that the processing that generates added features interferes with rehearsal. Here, we tested the idea that a similar trade-off is found in the visuospatial domain. In all experiments, a short series of single dots sequentially appeared at various locations on a screen. Participants produced the items by clicking on them at presentation, watched the items appear quietly, or produced an irrelevant click after each item to better even out rehearsal opportunities between produced and control conditions. In Experiment 1, the dots appeared within a visible grid and an order reconstruction task was used. Experiment 2 also called upon reconstruction, but with the grid removed. In Experiments 3, a recall task was used. The results show that producing items hindered performance compared to the control condition. Conversely, production improved performance compared to the control condition where rehearsal was hindered. This is the first demonstration of a visuospatial production effect. The key findings were successfully modeled by the Revised Feature Model (RFM).
{"title":"The Production Effect Becomes Spatial.","authors":"Jean Saint-Aubin, Marie Poirier, James M Yearsley, Dominic Guitard","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000609","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000609","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> In the verbal domain, it is well established that words read aloud are better remembered than their silently read counterparts. It has been hypothesized that this production effect stems from the addition of distinctive features, with the caveat that the processing that generates added features interferes with rehearsal. Here, we tested the idea that a similar trade-off is found in the visuospatial domain. In all experiments, a short series of single dots sequentially appeared at various locations on a screen. Participants produced the items by clicking on them at presentation, watched the items appear quietly, or produced an irrelevant click after each item to better even out rehearsal opportunities between produced and control conditions. In Experiment 1, the dots appeared within a visible grid and an order reconstruction task was used. Experiment 2 also called upon reconstruction, but with the grid removed. In Experiments 3, a recall task was used. The results show that producing items hindered performance compared to the control condition. Conversely, production improved performance compared to the control condition where rehearsal was hindered. This is the first demonstration of a visuospatial production effect. The key findings were successfully modeled by the Revised Feature Model (RFM).</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":"14-32"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141491502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-01Epub Date: 2024-03-19DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000600
Megan O Kelly, Xinyi Lu, Tyler M Ensor, Colin M MacLeod, Evan F Risko
The production effect is the finding that, relative to silent reading, producing information at study (e.g., reading aloud) leads to a benefit in memory. In most studies of this effect, individuals are presented with a set of unique items, and they produce a subset of these items (e.g., they are presented with the to-be-remembered target item TABLE and produce table) such that the production is both unique and representative of the target. Across two preregistered experiments, we examined the influence of a production that is unique but that does not match the target (e.g., producing fence to the target TABLE, producing car to the target TREE, and so on). This kind of production also yielded a significant effect-the mismatching production effect-although it was smaller than the standard production effect (i.e., when productions are both unique and representative of their targets) and was detectable only when targets with standard productions were included in the same study phase (i.e., when the type of production was manipulated within participant). We suggest that target-production matching is an important precursor to the production effect and that the kind of production that brings about a benefit depends on the other productions that are present.
制作效应是指相对于默读而言,在学习中制作信息(如朗读)会使记忆受益。在对这一效应的大多数研究中,研究人员会看到一组独特的项目,然后他们会制作出这些项目的一个子集(例如,他们会看到要记忆的目标项目 TABLE 并制作出表格),这样制作出来的信息既独特又能代表目标项目。在两个预先登记的实验中,我们考察了独特但与目标不匹配的发音(例如,根据目标 TABLE 生成栅栏,根据目标 TREE 生成汽车,等等)所产生的影响。这种制作也产生了显著的效应--不匹配制作效应--尽管它小于标准制作效应(即当制作既独特又能代表其目标时),而且只有当标准制作的目标被包含在同一研究阶段时(即当制作类型在被试内部被操纵时)才能被检测到。我们认为,目标-语篇匹配是语篇效应的一个重要前兆,而带来益处的语篇类型取决于其他语篇。
{"title":"Productions Need Not Match Study Items to Confer a Production Advantage, But It Helps.","authors":"Megan O Kelly, Xinyi Lu, Tyler M Ensor, Colin M MacLeod, Evan F Risko","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000600","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000600","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> The production effect is the finding that, relative to silent reading, producing information at study (e.g., reading aloud) leads to a benefit in memory. In most studies of this effect, individuals are presented with a set of unique items, and they produce a subset of these items (e.g., they are presented with the to-be-remembered target item TABLE and produce <i>table</i>) such that the production is both unique and representative of the target. Across two preregistered experiments, we examined the influence of a production that is unique but that does <i>not</i> match the target (e.g., producing <i>fence</i> to the target TABLE, producing <i>car</i> to the target TREE, and so on). This kind of production also yielded a significant effect-the <i>mismatching production</i> effect-although it was smaller than the standard production effect (i.e., when productions are both unique and representative of their targets) and was detectable only when targets with <i>standard</i> productions were included in the same study phase (i.e., when the type of production was manipulated within participant). We suggest that target-production matching is an important precursor to the production effect and that the kind of production that brings about a benefit depends on the other productions that are present.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":" ","pages":"2-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140179560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000611
Jeremy B Caplan, Dominic Guitard
Mathematical models explaining production effects assume that production leads to the encoding of additional features, such as phonological ones. This improves memory with a combination of encoding strength and feature distinctiveness, implementing aspects of propositional theories. However, it is not clear why production differs from other manipulations such as study time and spaced repetition, which are also thought to influence strength. Here we extend attentional subsetting theory and propose an explanation based on the dimensionality of feature spaces. Specifically, we suggest phonological features are drawn from a compact feature space. Deeper features are sparsely subselected from a larger subspace. Algebraic and numerical solutions shed light on several findings, including the dependency of production effects on how other list items are encoded (differing from other strength factors) and the production advantage even for homophones. This places production within a continuum of strength-like manipulations that differ in terms of the feature subspaces they operate upon and leads to novel predictions based on direct manipulations of feature-space properties.
{"title":"A Feature-Space Theory of the Production Effect in Recognition.","authors":"Jeremy B Caplan, Dominic Guitard","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000611","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000611","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> Mathematical models explaining production effects assume that production leads to the encoding of additional features, such as phonological ones. This improves memory with a combination of encoding strength and feature distinctiveness, implementing aspects of propositional theories. However, it is not clear why production differs from other manipulations such as study time and spaced repetition, which are also thought to influence strength. Here we extend attentional subsetting theory and propose an explanation based on the dimensionality of feature spaces. Specifically, we suggest phonological features are drawn from a compact feature space. Deeper features are sparsely subselected from a larger subspace. Algebraic and numerical solutions shed light on several findings, including the dependency of production effects on how other list items are encoded (differing from other <i>strength</i> factors) and the production advantage even for homophones. This places production within a continuum of strength-like manipulations that differ in terms of the feature subspaces they operate upon and leads to novel predictions based on direct manipulations of feature-space properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":"71 1","pages":"64-82"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11296319/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141792287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}