Noah D. Forrin

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.

The next generation: the value of reminding

In two experiments, we investigated the influence of repeated processing in the context of the generation effect. In both experiments, participants studied words once or twice. Once-studied words either were read or were generated from a definition. Twice-studied words were read both times, generated both times, or read once and generated once. Free recall was best (in order of decreasing performance) after generating twice, after generating plus reading, and finally after generating once; any generation was better than purely reading. Recognition showed a similar pattern, except that the benefit of generating twice was not as striking as in recall and that reading plus generating was just as effective as generating twice. The overall pattern of results is accounted for by a simple model in which a second encoding results in a reminding of the first encoding, and this additional encoding supports subsequent recollection. This reminding is, consequently, more effective in recall than in recognition, and it operates in accordance with the principles of transfer-appropriate processing.

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.

Order information is used to guide recall of long lists: Further evidence for the item-order account.

Differences in memory for item order have been used to explain the absence of between-subjects (i.e., pure-list) effects in free recall for several encoding techniques, including the production effect, the finding that reading aloud benefits memory compared with reading silently. Notably, however, evidence in support of the item-order account (Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991) has derived primarily from short-list paradigms. We provide novel evidence that the item-order account also applies when recalling long lists. In Experiment 1, participants studied and then free recalled 3 different long lists of words: pure aloud, pure silent, and mixed (half aloud, half silent). A Bayesian analysis supported a null pure-list production effect, and subsequent order analyses were largely consistent with the item-order account. These findings indicate that order information is retained in long-term memory and is useful in guiding subsequent free recall. In Experiment 2, a distractor task was inserted between the study and test phases, ensuring that only long-term memory processes were involved in recall: The pattern of results remained consistent with the item-order account. Order information can be retained in long-term memory for long lists, and is useful in guiding subsequent free recall, extending the domain of the item-order account. (PsycINFO Database Record

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

ABSTRACT 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.

On the relation between reading difficulty and mind-wandering: a section-length account

In many situations, increasing task difficulty decreases thoughts that are unrelated to the task (i.e., mind-wandering). In the context of reading, however, recent research demonstrated that increasing passage reading difficulty actually increases mind-wandering rates (e.g., Feng et al. in Psychon Bull Rev 20:586–592, 2013). The primary goal of this research was to elucidate the mechanism that drives this positive relation. Across Experiments 1–3, we found evidence that the effect of Flesch–Kincaid reading difficulty on mind-wandering is partially driven by hard passages having longer sections of text (i.e., more words per screen) than easy passages when passages are presented one sentence at a time. In Experiment 4, we controlled for reading difficulty, and found that section length was positively associated with mind-wandering rates. We conclude by proposing that individuals may tend to disengage their attention from passages with relatively long sections of text because they appear to be more demanding than passages with shorter sections (even though objective task demands are equivalent).

Cross-modality translations improve recognition by reducing false alarms

ABSTRACT 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.

Contingency proportion systematically influences contingency learning

In the color-word contingency learning paradigm, each word appears more often in one color (high contingency) than in the other colors (low contingency). Shortly after beginning the task, color identification responses become faster on the high-contingency trials than on the low-contingency trials—the contingency learning effect. Across five groups, we varied the high-contingency proportion in 10% steps, from 80% to 40%. The size of the contingency learning effect was positively related to high-contingency proportion, with the effect disappearing when high contingency was reduced to 40%. At the two highest contingency proportions, the magnitude of the effect increased over trials, the pattern suggesting that there was an increasing cost for the low-contingency trials rather than an increasing benefit for the high-contingency trials. Overall, the results fit a modified version of Schmidt’s (2013, Acta Psychologica, 142, 119–126) parallel episodic processing account in which prior trial instances are routinely retrieved from memory and influence current trial performance.