The benefit (and cost) of drawing as an encoding strategy.

Drawing, as an encoding strategy for to-be-remembered words, has previously been shown to provide robust memory benefits. In the current study, we investigated the effect of drawing on false memory endorsements during a recognition test. We found that while drawing led to higher hit rates relative to writing (Experiment 1) and creating visual mental imagery (Experiment 2), it also led to higher false alarm (FA) rates to critical lures in a variant of the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. When compared with an encoding strategy requiring listing of object features (Experiment 3), drawing led to a lower FA rate. We suggest that drawing enhances memory by promoting recollection of rich visual contextual information during retrieval, and this leads to the unintended side effect of increasing FA rates to related information.

Interfering with memory for faces: The cost of doing two things at once.

We inferred the processes critical for episodic retrieval of faces by measuring susceptibility to memory interference from different distracting tasks. Experiment 1 examined recognition of studied faces under full attention (FA) or each of two divided attention (DA) conditions requiring concurrent decisions to auditorily presented letters. Memory was disrupted in both DA relative to FA conditions, a result contrary to a material-specific account of interference effects. Experiment 2 investigated whether the magnitude of interference depended on competition between concurrent tasks for common processing resources. Studied faces were presented either upright (configurally processed) or inverted (featurally processed). Recognition was completed under FA, or DA with one of two face-based distracting tasks requiring either featural or configural processing. We found an interaction: memory for upright faces was lower under DA when the distracting task required configural than featural processing, while the reverse was true for memory of inverted faces. Across experiments, the magnitude of memory interference was similar (a 19% or 20% decline from FA) regardless of whether the materials in the distracting task overlapped with the to-be-remembered information. Importantly, interference was significantly larger (42%) when the processing demands of the distracting and target retrieval task overlapped, suggesting a processing-specific account of memory interference.