Literature DB >> 2233260

Physical interaction and association by contiguity in memory for the words and melodies of songs.

R G Crowder1, M L Serafine, B Repp.   

Abstract

Three experiments were designed to investigate two explanations for the integration effect in memory for songs (Serafine, Crowder, & Repp, 1984; Serafine, Davidson, Crowder, & Repp, 1986). The integration effect is the finding that recognition of the melody (or text) of a song is better in the presence of the text (or melody) with which it had been heard originally than in the presence of a different text (or melody). One explanation for this finding is the physical interaction hypothesis, which holds that one component of a song exerts subtle but memorable physical changes on the other component, making the latter different from what it would be with a different companion. In Experiments 1 and 2, we investigated the influence that words could exert on the subtle musical character of a melody. A second explanation for the integration effect is the association-by-contiguity hypothesis, which holds that any two events experienced in close temporal proximity may become connected in memory such that each acts as a recall cue for the other. In Experiment 3, we investigated the degree to which simultaneous presentations of spoken text with a hummed melody would induce an association between the two components. The results gave encouragement for both explanations and are discussed in terms of the distinction between encoding specificity and independent associative bonding.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2233260     DOI: 10.3758/bf03198480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  2 in total

1.  Physical interaction and association by contiguity in memory for the words and melodies of songs.

Authors:  R G Crowder; M L Serafine; B Repp
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1990-09

2.  Integration of melody and text in memory for songs.

Authors:  M L Serafine; R G Crowder; B H Repp
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1984-04
  2 in total
  11 in total

1.  Expectancies generated by recent exposure to melodic sequences.

Authors:  W F Thompson; L L Balkwill; R Vernescu
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-06

2.  Two-way interactions between music and language: evidence from priming recognition of tune and lyrics in familiar songs.

Authors:  Isabelle Peretz; Monique Radeau; Martin Arguin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-01

3.  Physical interaction and association by contiguity in memory for the words and melodies of songs.

Authors:  R G Crowder; M L Serafine; B Repp
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1990-09

4.  Learning lyrics: to sing or not to sing?

Authors:  Amélie Racette; Isabelle Peretz
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-03

5.  Sing that tune: infants' perception of melody and lyrics and the facilitation of phonetic recognition in songs.

Authors:  Gina C Lebedeva; Patricia K Kuhl
Journal:  Infant Behav Dev       Date:  2010-05-15

6.  Memory for musical tempo: additional evidence that auditory memory is absolute.

Authors:  D J Levitin; P R Cook
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-08

7.  Neural substrates for semantic memory of familiar songs: is there an interface between lyrics and melodies?

Authors:  Yoko Saito; Kenji Ishii; Naoko Sakuma; Keiichi Kawasaki; Keiichi Oda; Hidehiro Mizusawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Musical expertise and statistical learning of musical and linguistic structures.

Authors:  Daniele Schön; Clément François
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-07-18

9.  Rhythm in disguise: why singing may not hold the key to recovery from aphasia.

Authors:  Benjamin Stahl; Sonja A Kotz; Ilona Henseler; Robert Turner; Stefan Geyer
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 13.501

10.  Song and speech: examining the link between singing talent and speech imitation ability.

Authors:  Markus Christiner; Susanne M Reiterer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-11-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.