Literature DB >> 29934748

Effects of divided attention at encoding and retrieval: Further data.

Fergus I M Craik1, Eldar Eftekhari2, Malcolm A Binns2.   

Abstract

Division of attention (DA) at the time of learning has large detrimental effects on subsequent memory performance, but DA at retrieval has much smaller effects (Baddeley, Lewis, Eldridge, & Thomson, 1984, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518-540; Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159-180). Experiment 1 confirmed the relatively small effects of DA on retrieval and also showed that retrieval operations do consume processing resources. The experiment also found that the effect is not attributable to a trade-off in performance with the concurrent task or to recognition decisions made on the basis of familiarity judgments. Participants made levels-of-processing (LOP) judgments during encoding to check whether deeper semantic judgments were differentially vulnerable to the effects of DA. In fact DA did not interact with LOP. Experiment 2 explored reports that the comparatively slight effect of DA on recognition accuracy is accompanied by a compensatory increase in recognition latency (Baddeley et al., 1984). The experiment replicated findings that neither DA nor differential emphasis between recognition and a concurrent continuous reaction time (CRT) task affected recognition accuracy, but also found evidence for a lawful trade-off in decision latencies between recognition and CRT performance. Further analysis showed that the relationship between response rates on the two tasks was well described by a linear function, and that this function was demonstrated by the majority of individual participants. It is concluded that the small effect of DA on recognition performance is attributable to a trade-off within the recognition task itself; accuracy is maintained by a compensatory increase in decision latency.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Divided attention; Encoding; Response latency; Response rate; Retrieval

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29934748     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0835-3

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


  14 in total

1.  Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory.

Authors:  J L Hicks; R L Marsh
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments.

Authors:  John T Wixted; Laura Mickes
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.

Authors:  F I Craik; R Govoni; M Naveh-Benjamin; N D Anderson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1996-06

4.  Invariance in automatic influences of memory: toward a user's guide for the process-dissociation procedure.

Authors:  L L Jacoby
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Age differences in predictions and performance on a cued recall task.

Authors:  R J Shaw; F I Craik
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1989-06

6.  Functional aspects of recollective experience.

Authors:  J M Gardiner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1988-07

7.  Conscious attentional demands of encoding and retrieval from long-term memory.

Authors:  R T Kellogg; T Cocklin; L E Bourne
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1982

8.  Recollection can be weak and familiarity can be strong.

Authors:  Katherine M Ingram; Laura Mickes; John T Wixted
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Concurrent task effects on memory retrieval.

Authors:  Doug Rohrer; Harold E Pashler
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-03

10.  Evaluating models of remember-know judgments: complexity, mimicry, and discriminability.

Authors:  Andrew L Cohen; Caren M Rotello; Neil A Macmillan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-10
View more
  5 in total

1.  Neural correlates of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Authors:  Alana Muller; Lindsey A Sirianni; Richard J Addante
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 3.386

2.  Neural correlates of post-retrieval monitoring in older adults are preserved under divided attention, but are decoupled from memory performance.

Authors:  Erin D Horne; Marianne de Chastelaine; Michael D Rugg
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 4.673

3.  Divided attention at retrieval does not influence neural correlates of recollection in young or older adults.

Authors:  Mingzhu Hou; Erin D Horne; Marianne de Chastelaine; Michael D Rugg
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Selection in working memory is resource-demanding: Concurrent task effects on the retro-cue effect.

Authors:  Yin-Ting Lin; Edyta Sasin; Daryl Fougnie
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  The effects of divided attention at encoding on specific and gist-based associative episodic memory.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Greene; Moshe Naveh-Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-06-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.