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 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.

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.

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.

The Production Effect Improves Memory in 7- to 10-Year-Old Children.

The production effect-whereby reading words aloud improves memory for those words relative to reading them silently-was investigated in two experiments with 7- to 10-year-old children residing in Brisbane, Australia. Experiment 1 (n = 41) involved familiar printed words, with words read aloud or silently appearing either in mixed- or blocked-list formats in a within-subject design. Recognition for words read aloud was better than for those read silently, an effect consistent across both list formats. These results were confirmed in Experiment 2 (n = 40) using longer lists of printed novel nonwords. Final analyses indicated that the production effect was comparable for words and nonwords. Findings are discussed in relation to the distinctiveness account and the use of production as a mnemonic in children.

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.

Cross-modality translations improve recognition by reducing false alarms.

Conway and Gathercole [(1990). Writing and long-term memory: Evidence for a "translation" hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 513-527] proposed a translation account to explain why certain types of encoding produce benefits in memory: Switching modalities from what is presented to what is encoded enhances item distinctiveness. We investigated this hypothesis in a recognition experiment in which the presentation modality of a study list (visual vs. auditory) and the encoding activity (speaking vs. typing vs. passive encoding) were manipulated between-subjects. Manipulating encoding activity between-subjects ruled out any potential influence of the relationally distinct processing that can occur in a within-subject manipulation (in which all previous translation effects have been demonstrated). We found no overall difference in memory for words presented auditorily vs. visually nor for visual vs. auditory encoding, but critically presentation modality and encoding activity did interact. Translating from one modality to another - particularly from auditory presentation to visual encoding (typing) - led to the best memory discrimination. This was largely because of reduced false alarms, not increased hits, consistent with the distinctiveness heuristic.

This time it's personal: the memory benefit of hearing oneself.

The production effect is the memory advantage of saying words aloud over simply reading them silently. It has been hypothesised that this advantage stems from production featuring distinctive information that stands out at study relative to reading silently. MacLeod (2011) (I said, you said: The production effect gets personal. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1197-1202. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0168-8 ) found superior memory for reading aloud oneself vs. hearing another person read aloud, which suggests that motor information (speaking), self-referential information (i.e., "I said it"), or both contribute to the production effect. In the present experiment, we dissociated the influence on memory of these two components by including a study condition in which participants heard themselves read words aloud (recorded earlier) - a first for production effect research - along with the more typical study conditions of reading aloud, hearing someone else speak, and reading silently. There was a gradient of memory across these four conditions, with hearing oneself lying between speaking and hearing someone else speak. These results imply that oral production is beneficial because it entails two distinctive components: a motor (speech) act and a unique, self-referential auditory input.

Relative speed of processing determines color-word contingency learning.

In three experiments, we tested a relative-speed-of-processing account of color-word contingency learning, a phenomenon in which color identification responses to high-contingency stimuli (words that appear most often in particular colors) are faster than those to low-contingency stimuli. Experiment 1 showed equally large contingency-learning effects whether responding was to the colors or to the words, likely due to slow responding to both dimensions because of the unfamiliar mapping required by the key press responses. For Experiment 2, participants switched to vocal responding, in which reading words is considerably faster than naming colors, and we obtained a contingency-learning effect only for color naming, the slower dimension. In Experiment 3, previewing the color information resulted in a reduced contingency-learning effect for color naming, but it enhanced the contingency-learning effect for word reading. These results are all consistent with contingency learning influencing performance only when the nominally irrelevant feature is faster to process than the relevant feature, and therefore are entirely in accord with a relative-speed-of-processing explanation.

The production effect in paired-associate learning: benefits for item and associative information.

In five experiments, we extended the production effect-better memory for items said aloud than for items read silently-to paired-associate learning, the goal being to explore whether production enhances associative information in addition to enhancing item information. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used a semantic-relatedness task in addition to the production manipulation and found no evidence of a production effect, whether the measure was cued recall or item recognition. Experiment 3 showed that the semantic-relatedness task had overshadowed the production effect; the effect was present when the semantic-relatedness task was removed, again whether cued recall or item recognition was the measure. Experiments 4 and 5 provided further evidence that production can enhance recall for word pairs and, using an associate recognition test with intact versus rearranged pairs, indicated that production may also enhance associative information. That production boosts memory for both types of information is considered in terms of distinctive encoding.

Production improves memory equivalently following elaborative vs non-elaborative processing.

Words that are read aloud are better remembered than those read silently. Recent research has suggested that, rather than reflecting a benefit for produced items, this production effect may reflect a cost to reading silently in a list containing both aloud and silent items (Bodner, Taikh, & Fawcett, 2013). This cost is argued to occur because silent items are lazily read, receiving less attention than aloud items which require an overt response. We examined the possible role of lazy reading in the production effect by testing whether the effect would be reduced under elaborative encoding, which precludes lazy reading of silent items. Contrary to a lazy reading account, we found that production benefited generated words as much as read words (Experiment 1) and deeply imagined words as much as shallowly imagined words (Experiment 2). We conclude that production stands out as equally distinct-and consequently as equally memorable-regardless of whether it accompanies deep or shallow processing, evidence that is inconsistent with a lazy reading account.

Remembered study mode: support for the distinctiveness account of the production effect.

The production effect is the finding that words spoken aloud at study are subsequently remembered better than are words read silently at study. According to the distinctiveness account, aloud words are remembered better because the act of speaking those words aloud is encoded and later recovery of this information can be used to infer that those words were studied. An alternative account (the strength-based account) is that memory strength is simply greater for words read aloud. To discriminate these two accounts, we investigated study mode judgements (i.e., "aloud"/"silent"/"new" ratings): The strength-based account predicts that "aloud" responses should positively correlate with memory strength, whereas the distinctiveness account predicts that accuracy of study mode judgements will be independent of memory strength. Across three experiments, where the strength of some silent words was increased by repetition, study mode was discriminable regardless of strength-even when the strength of aloud and repeated silent items was equivalent. Consistent with the distinctiveness account, we conclude that memory for "aloudness" is independent of memory strength and a likely candidate to explain the production effect.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.