Literature DB >> 7137417

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

R T Kellogg, T Cocklin, L E Bourne.   

Abstract

The importance of allocating conscious attention to encoding and retrieval from long-term memory was investigated. Encoding, retrieval, and reactivation hypotheses were tested. College students were shown schematic faces in a secondary task and numerical problems as a primary task. The primary task was imposed both when the faces were encoded on study trials and when they were retrieved on recognition test trials. Difficulty of the primary task (easy vs. hard) was varied on both study and test trials. The easy problems permitted conscious attention to be given to the secondary faces whereas the hard problems prevented such allocation. Instructions about encoding the faces (incidental vs. intentional) were given to different groups. The degree of conscious attention that was allocated to the faces on study trials was assessed by means of interference, intention, and retrospection criteria of attended processing. Recognition of the faces was better when subjects allocated conscious attention to encoding than when they did not, in consistent support of the encoding hypothesis. The data ruled out a reactivation explanation. Finally, at times, paying special attention at retrieval improved recognition performance, providing weak support for the retrieval hypothesis.

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7137417

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Psychol        ISSN: 0002-9556


  10 in total

1.  Asymmetry between encoding and retrieval processes: evidence from divided attention and a calibration analysis.

Authors:  M Naveh-Benjamin; F I Craik; D Gavrilescu; N D Anderson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-09

2.  Recognition memory for distractor faces depends on attentional load at exposure.

Authors:  Rob Jenkins; Nilli Lavie; Jon Driver
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

3.  Episodic encoding is more than the sum of its parts: an fMRI investigation of multifeatural contextual encoding.

Authors:  Melina R Uncapher; Leun J Otten; Michael D Rugg
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2006-11-09       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: the role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption.

Authors:  Sarah J Barber; Suparna Rajaram
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2011-05

5.  Effects of task-set adoption on ERP correlates of controlled and automatic recognition memory.

Authors:  Kristine A Wilckens; Joshua J Tremel; David A Wolk; Mark E Wheeler
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Dual-task interference in visual working memory: a limitation in storage capacity but not in encoding or retrieval.

Authors:  Daryl Fougnie; René Marois
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.199

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

Authors:  Fergus I M Craik; Eldar Eftekhari; Malcolm A Binns
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-11

Review 8.  Posterior parietal cortex and episodic encoding: insights from fMRI subsequent memory effects and dual-attention theory.

Authors:  Melina R Uncapher; Anthony D Wagner
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 2.877

9.  Memory Performance for Everyday Motivational and Neutral Objects Is Dissociable from Attention.

Authors:  Judith Schomaker; Bianca C Wittmann
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.558

10.  Concealed semantic and episodic autobiographical memory electrified.

Authors:  Giorgio Ganis; Haline E Schendan
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 3.169

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.