On the association between intention and visual word identification.

One of the most fundamental distinctions in cognitive psychology is between processing that is "controlled" and processing that is "automatic." The widely held automatic processing account of visual word identification asserts that, among other characteristics, the presentation of a well-formed letter string triggers sublexical, lexical, and semantic activation in the absence of any intention to do so. Instead, the role of intention is seen as independent of stimulus identification and as restricted to selection for action using the products of identification (e.g., braking in response to a sign saying "BRIDGE OUT"). We consider four paradigms with respect to the role of an intention-defined here as a "task set" indicating how to perform in the current situation-when identifying single well-formed letter strings. Contrary to the received automaticity view, the literature regarding each of these paradigms demonstrates that the relation between an intention and stimulus identification is constrained in multiple ways, many of which are not well understood at present. One thing is clear: There is no simple relation between an intention, in the form of a task set, and stimulus identification. Automatic processing of words, if this indeed ever occurs, certainly is not a system default. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Productions Need Not Match Study Items to Confer a Production Advantage, But It Helps.

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.

Release from response interference in color-word contingency learning.

In identifying the print colors of words when some combinations of color and word occur more frequently than others, people quickly show evidence of learning these associations. This contingency learning effect is evident in faster and more accurate responses to high-contingency combinations than to low-contingency combinations. Across four experiments, we systematically varied the number of response-irrelevant word stimuli connected to response-relevant colors. In each experiment, one group experienced the typical contingency learning paradigm with three colors linked to three words; other groups saw more words (six or twelve) linked to the same three colors. All four experiments disconfirmed a central prediction derived from the Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP 2.0) model (Schmidt et al., 2016)-that the magnitude of the contingency learning effect should remain stable as more words are added to the response-irrelevant dimension, as long as the color-word contingency ratios are maintained. Responses to high-contingency items did slow down numerically as the number of words increased between groups, consistent with the prediction from PEP 2.0, but these changes were unreliable. Inconsistent with PEP 2.0, however, overall response time did not slow down and responses to low-contingency items actually sped up as the number of words increased across groups. These findings suggest that the PEP 2.0 model should be modified to incorporate response interference caused by high-probability associations when responding to low-probability combinations.

Reading text aloud benefits memory but not comprehension.

The production effect-that reading aloud leads to better memory than does reading silently-has been defined narrowly with reference to memory; it has been explored largely using word lists as the material to be read and remembered. But might the benefit of production extend beyond memory and beyond individual words? In a series of four experiments, passages from reading comprehension tests served as the study material. Participants read some passages aloud and others silently. After each passage, they completed multiple-choice questions about that passage. Separating the multiple-choice questions into memory-focused versus comprehension-focused questions, we observed a consistent production benefit only for the memory-focused questions. Production clearly improves memory for text, not just for individual words, and also extends to multiple-choice testing. The overall pattern of findings fits with the distinctiveness account of production-that information read aloud stands out at study and at test from information read silently. Only when the tested information is a very close match to the studied information, as is the case for memory questions but not for comprehension questions, does production improve accuracy.

The prod eff: Partially producing items moderates the production effect.

Current accounts of the production effect suggest that production leads to the encoding of additional production-associated features and/or better feature encoding. Thus, if it is the act of production that leads to the storage and/or enhanced encoding of these features, then less of this act should reduce the resulting production effect. In two experiments, we provide a direct test of this idea by manipulating how much of a given item is produced within a single mode of production (typing). Results demonstrate that such partial production can yield a significant production effect that is smaller than the effect that emerges from producing the entire item. These results suggest that how much of an item is produced can moderate the size of the production effect and are considered in the context of recent modelling efforts.

Symbol superiority: Why $ is better remembered than 'dollar'.

Memory typically is better for information presented in picture format than in word format. Dual-coding theory (Paivio, 1969) proposes that this is because pictures are spontaneously labelled, leading to the creation of two representational codes-image and verbal-whereas words often lead to only a single (verbal) code. With this perspective as motivation, the present investigation asked whether common graphic symbols (e.g.,!@#$%&) are afforded primarily verbal coding, akin to words, or whether they also invoke visual imagery, as do pictures. Across four experiments, participants were presented at study with graphic symbols or words (e.g., $ or 'dollar'). In Experiment 1, memory was assessed using free recall; in Experiment 2, memory was assessed using old-new recognition. In Experiment 3, the word set was restricted to a single category. In Experiment 4, memory for graphic symbols, pictures, and words was directly compared. All four experiments demonstrated a memory benefit for symbols relative to words. In a fifth experiment, machine learning estimations of inherent stimulus memorability were found to predict memory performance in the earlier experiments. This study is the first to present evidence that, like pictures, graphic symbols are better remembered than words, in line with dual-coding theory and with a distinctiveness account. We reason that symbols offer a visual referent for abstract concepts that are otherwise unlikely to be spontaneously imaged.

Aging and directed forgetting: Evidence for an associative deficit but no evidence for an inhibition deficit.

Intentional forgetting aims to prevent unwanted information from being stored in long-term memory. Surprisingly, past research has shown that, relative to younger adults, older adults recall and recognize more to-be-forgotten information. It has been suggested that this occurs because older adults have a deficient ability to inhibit information. In two experiments, we examined memory differences between older and younger adults in an item-method directed forgetting task. Participants viewed words one at a time during a study phase, each followed by a cue to remember (R) or to forget (F). In Experiment 1, participants' later recognition of both types of items was assessed, followed by a separate source discrimination test for the cue that had been associated with each word at study. In Experiment 2, memory was assessed using a three-response recognition test, indicating whether each word was either new or previously studied and, if previously studied, whether it was associated with an R cue or an F cue. In both experiments, older and younger adults recognized more to-be-remembered items than to-be-forgotten items, the typical directed forgetting effect (DFE). Contrary to past reports, older adults did not remember more to-be-forgotten items than did younger adults, inconsistent with an inhibitory deficit. Older adults were, however, less accurate than younger adults in identifying cue associations for both R and F items, consistent instead with an associative memory deficit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The enactment effect: A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral, neuroimaging, and patient studies.

The enactment effect is the phenomenon that physically performing an action represented by a word or phrase (e.g., clap, clap your hands) results in better memory than does simply reading it. We examined data from three different methodological approaches to provide a comprehensive review of the enactment effect across 145 behavioral, 7 neuroimaging, and 31 neurological patient studies. Boosts in memory performance following execution of a physical action were compared to those produced by reading words or phrases, by watching an experimenter perform actions, or by engaging in self-generated imagery. Across the behavioral studies, we employed random-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation (RVE) to reveal an average enactment effect size of g = 1.23. Further meta-analyses revealed that variations in study design and comparison task reliably influence the size of the enactment effect, whereas four other experiment factors-test format, learning instruction type, retention interval, and the presence of objects during encoding-likely do not influence the effect. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated enactment-related activation to be prevalent in the motor cortex and inferior parietal lobule. Patient studies indicated that, regardless of whether impairments of memory (e.g., Alzheimer's) or of motor capability (e.g., Parkinson's) were present, patients were able to benefit from enactment. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis highlight two components accounting for the memory benefit from enactment: a primary mental contribution relating to planning the action and a secondary physical contribution of the action itself. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The production effect is consistent over material variations: support for the distinctiveness account.

The production effect is the superior memory for items read aloud as opposed to silently at the time of study. The distinctiveness account holds that produced items benefit from the encoding of additional elements associated with the act of production. If so, then that benefit should be consistent regardless of item type. Three experiments, using three different sets of materials and three different methods, tested this hypothesis. Experiment 1, using recognition testing, showed consistent production benefits for high and low frequency words. Experiment 2, using free recall, showed consistent production increments for pictures and words. Experiment 3, using incidental learning, showed consistent production benefits for recognition of nonwords and words. Taken together, these results fit with the distinctiveness account: Production at encoding dependably adds information to the memory record, regardless of item type or method of testing, producing a consistently reliable memory benefit.

Production as a distinctive contextual cue for retrieving intentionally forgotten information.

The production effect-the memory benefit for information studied aloud as opposed to silently-has been credited to the distinctive processing of the aloud information. Could the production effect be characterized more broadly as a context-based memory effect? At encoding, the distinctive "aloud" information could create a global contextual cue that becomes associated with only the produced information. This cue could then be elicited at retrieval to facilitate memory for the produced information. To test this idea, a mixed-list production effect manipulation was combined with a list-method directed forgetting procedure. According to the contextual change account of list-method directed forgetting, when the first of two lists is to be forgotten, that list is poorly remembered later due to the mental context change between the lists, which causes the context of the second list to better match the test context. Reinstating the relevant contextual cues, therefore, improves memory for the to-be-forgotten list. Our results showed that reading aloud did indeed function as contextual information: Reactivating this production information at retrieval enhanced memory only for aloud items-and not for silent items-from the to-be-forgotten list. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Canadian Journal of (Experimental) Psychology: The first 70 years.

This article presents a survey of the first 70 years of this journal, covering (a) the origin and subsequent history of the journal, (b) who the Editors have been, (c) how the Editors have influenced the journal, (d) the most highly cited articles, and (e) consideration of the journal's content. After shifts in its purpose over its first two decades, the journal settled into being an outlet that is well respected around the world for research in the field of human experimental psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Attention spreads between students in a learning environment.

We propose a novel phenomenon, attention contagion, defined as the spread of attentive (or inattentive) states among members of a group. We examined attention contagion in a learning environment in which pairs of undergraduate students watched a lecture video. Each pair consisted of a participant and a confederate trained to exhibit attentive behaviors (e.g., leaning forward) or inattentive behaviors (e.g., slouching). In Experiment 1, confederates sat in front of participants and could be seen. Relative to participants who watched the lecture with an inattentive confederate, participants with an attentive confederate: (a) self-reported higher levels of attentiveness, (b) behaved more attentively (e.g., took more notes), and (c) had better memory for lecture content. In Experiment 2, confederates sat behind participants. Despite confederates not being visible, participants were still aware of whether confederates were acting attentively or inattentively, and participants were still susceptible to attention contagion. Our findings suggest that distraction is one factor that contributes to the spread of inattentiveness (Experiment 1), but this phenomenon apparently can still occur in the absence of distraction (Experiment 2). We propose an account of how (in)attentiveness spreads across students and discuss practical implications regarding how learning is affected in the classroom. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Production between and within: distinctiveness and the relative magnitude of the production effect.

The production effect is the memory advantage for items studied aloud over items studied silently. Three experiments examined the influence of (1) the distinctiveness heuristic in a pure-list paradigm and (2) statistical distinctiveness during study. Aloud versus silent processing was manipulated within-subject in a mixed-list procedure and additional pure-list items were alternated with the to-be-remembered words. This arrangement permitted the first examination of the production effect using both within-subject and between-subjects manipulations in the same experiment. The quite large between-subjects production effect observed for the pure-list words is attributed to the distinctiveness of the aloud words being enhanced by the co-occurring within-subject manipulation. In addition, when the pure-list words were all read aloud, they effectively increased the overall proportion of aloud words, thereby decreasing the distinctiveness of the to-be-remembered aloud words in the mixed list. Correspondingly, there was a decrease in the magnitude of the production effect. However, when the pure-list words were all read silently, the magnitude of the production effect was unchanged relative to baseline. These results provide partial support for the influence of statistical distinctiveness on the magnitude of the production effect.

Recallable but not recognizable: The influence of semantic priming in recall paradigms.

When people can successfully recall a studied word, they should be able to recognize it as having been studied. In cued-recall paradigms, however, participants sometimes correctly recall words in the presence of strong semantic cues but then fail to recognize those words as actually having been studied. Although the conditions necessary to produce this unusual effect are known, the underlying neural correlates have not been investigated. Across five experiments, involving both behavioral and electrophysiological methods (EEG), we investigated the cognitive and neural processes that underlie recognition failures. Experiments 1 and 2 showed behaviorally that assuming that recalled items can be recognized in cued-recall paradigms is a flawed assumption, because recognition failures occur in the presence of cues, regardless of whether those failures are measured. With event-related potentials (ERPs), Experiments 3 and 4 revealed that successfully recalled words that are recognized are driven by recollection at recall and then by a combination of recollection and familiarity at ensuing recognition. In contrast, recognition failures did not show that memory signature and may instead be driven by semantic priming at recall and followed at recognition stages by negative-going ERP effects consistent with implicit processes, such as repetition fluency. These results demonstrate that recall - long-characterized as predominantly reflecting recollection-based processing in episodic memory - may at times also be served by a confluence of implicit cognitive processes.

Memory & Cognition: The first 40 years.

This article presents a survey of the first 40 years of this journal, covering (1) the origin and subsequent history of the journal, (2) who the editors have been, (3) the influence of the journal and its editors on the field, and (4) the most frequently cited articles. A virtually immediate success, Memory & Cognition has gone on to become one of the leading journals in the field of cognitive psychology.

The butcher on the bus: A note on familiarity without recollection.

In 1980, George Mandler published an article in Psychological Review that has become very influential in the study of memory. As evidence, according to Google Scholar (as of August 17, 2020), this article has been cited 3,391 times. Writing about recognition memory, Mandler made a fundamental distinction between recognition involving familiarity and recognition involving recollection. Mandler introduced what has since become the label for his illustration, saying that "Specific identification of an event is not possible on the basis of its familiarity alone. The butcher-in-the-bus is one intuitive demonstration of such an assertion." The purpose of this note is, ironically, to provide context, in this case historical context. Twenty-seven years before Mandler's (1980) article, Charles Osgood (1953) provided a discussion of retention and interference theory in his book, Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology. Is it possible that Mandler inadvertently borrowed Osgood's illustration, a case of cryptomnesia? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Zeigarnik and von Restorff: The memory effects and the stories behind them.

Two of the best known eponymous phenomena in memory research were carried out as dissertations in the same era at the same university, each supervised by an influential researcher working within the Gestalt framework. Both examined the influence of unexpected events on memory. Bluma Zeigarnik (Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1-85, 1927) first reported that memory is better for interrupted tasks than for completed tasks, a phenomenon long known as the Zeigarnik effect. Hedwig von Restorff (Psychologische Forschung, 18, 299-342, 1933) first reported that memory is better for isolated than for non-isolated pieces of information, a phenomenon long known as the von Restorff effect. In this article, I present: (1) a biographical sketch of the researcher behind each phenomenon, (2) a description of their dissertation research, and (3) an evaluation of the current status of each phenomenon.

Re-evaluating whether bilateral eye movements influence memory retrieval.

Several recent studies have reported enhanced memory when retrieval is preceded by repetitive horizontal eye movements, relative to vertical or no eye movements. The reported memory boost has been referred to as the Saccade-Induced Retrieval Enhancement (SIRE) effect. Across two experiments, memory performance was compared following repetitive horizontal or vertical eye movements, as well as following a control condition of no eye movements. In Experiment 1, we conceptually replicated Christman and colleagues' seminal study, finding a statistically significant SIRE effect, albeit with weak Bayesian evidence. We therefore sought to conduct another close extension. In Experiment 2, horizontal and vertical eye movement conditions were manipulated separately, and sample size was increased. No evidence of a SIRE effect was found: Bayesian statistical analyses demonstrated significant evidence for a null effect. Taken together, these experiments suggest that the SIRE effect is inconsistent. The current experiments call into question the generalizability of the SIRE effect and suggest that its presence is very sensitive to experimental design. Future work should further assess the robustness of the effect before exploring related theories or underlying mechanisms.