Literature DB >> 25018583

All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks.

Mark J Huff1, Glen E Bodner1.   

Abstract

Whether encoding variability facilitates memory is shown to depend on whether item-specific and relational processing are both performed across study blocks, and whether study items are weakly versus strongly related. Variable-processing groups studied a word list once using an item-specific task and once using a relational task. Variable-task groups' two different study tasks recruited the same type of processing each block. Repeated-task groups performed the same study task each block. Recall and recognition were greatest in the variable-processing group, but only with weakly related lists. A variable-processing benefit was also found when task-based processing and list-type processing were complementary (e.g., item-specific processing of a related list) rather than redundant (e.g., relational processing of a related list). That performing both item-specific and relational processing across trials, or within a trial, yields encoding-variability benefits may help reconcile decades of contradictory findings in this area.

Entities:  

Keywords:  encoding variability; false recognition; free recall; item-specific and relational processing; recognition

Year:  2014        PMID: 25018583      PMCID: PMC4088266          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  27 in total

1.  Three-step priming in lexical decision.

Authors:  Dorothee J Chwilla; Herman H J Kolk
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-03

2.  Judgment of frequency versus recognition confidence: repetition and recursive reminding.

Authors:  Douglas L Hintzman
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-03

3.  Why distinctive information reduces false memories: evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts.

Authors:  Amanda C G Hege; Chad S Dodson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Interpolated task effects on direct and mediated false recognition: effects of initial recall, recognition, and the ironic effect of guessing.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Jennifer H Coane; Keith A Hutchison; Elisabeth B Grasser; Jessica E Blais
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  How Does Distinctive Processing Reduce False Recall?

Authors:  R Reed Hunt; Rebekah E Smith; Kathryn R Dunlap
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 3.059

6.  Item-specific processing reduces false memories.

Authors:  David P McCabe; Alison G Presmanes; Chuck L Robertson; Anderson D Smith
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-12

7.  Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention.

Authors:  Henry L Roediger; Jeffrey D Karpicke
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-03

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

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Michelle L Meade; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2011-05

9.  Adaptive memory: determining the proximate mechanisms responsible for the memorial advantages of survival processing.

Authors:  Daniel J Burns; Sarah A Burns; Ana J Hwang
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Age-related differences in the impact of spacing, lag, and retention interval.

Authors:  D A Balota; J M Duchek; R Paullin
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1989-03
View more
  7 in total

1.  Distinctive encoding of a subset of DRM lists yields not only benefits, but also costs and spillovers.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner; Matthew R Gretz
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-08-28

2.  Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Andrew J Aschenbrenner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-11

3.  List blocking and longer retention intervals reveal an influence of gist processing for lexically ambiguous critical lures.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Jaimie McNabb; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-11

4.  Making judgments of learning enhances memory by inducing item-specific processing.

Authors:  Olesya Senkova; Hajime Otani
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01-04

5.  The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; David A Balota; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Predicting memory formation over multiple study episodes.

Authors:  Carolin Sievers; Chris M Bird; Louis Renoult
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 2.460

7.  Reactivity from judgments of learning is not only due to memory forecasting: evidence from associative memory and frequency judgments.

Authors:  Nicholas P Maxwell; Mark J Huff
Journal:  Metacogn Learn       Date:  2022-04-29
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.