We have recently cast doubt (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998) on the view that encoding and retrieval processes in human memory are similar. Divided attention at encoding was shown to reduce memory performance significantly, whereas divided attention at retrieval affected memory performance only minimally. In this article we examined this asymmetry further by using more difficult retrieval tasks, which require substantial effort. In one experiment, subjects had to encode and retrieve lists of unfamiliar name-nouns combinations attached to people's photographs, and in the other, subjects had to encode words that were either strong or weak associates of the cues presented with them and then to retrieve those words with either intra- or extra-list cues. The results of both experiments showed that unlike division of attention at encoding, which reduces memory performance markedly, division of attention at retrieval has almost no effect on memory performance, but was accompanied by an increase in secondary-task cost. Such findings again illustrated the resiliency of retrieval processes to manipulations involving the withdrawal of attention. We contend that retrieval processes are obligatory or protected, but that they require attentional resources for their execution.
Objective: To assess performance on two nondeclarative (implicit) memory tasks of Parkinson disease (PD) patients without dementia in the earlier or later stages of the disease (Hoehn and Yahr Scale scores of 1-2.5 or 3-4, respectively).Background: Different subtypes of nondeclarative memory appear to depend on different components of frontostriatal circuitry. Performance on a probabilistic classification learning (PCL) task was impaired by striatal damage (eg, in PD or Huntington disease) but not by circumscribed frontal lobe damage. On the other hand, performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) was impaired by damage to the prefrontal cortex.Method and Results: On the PCL, the learning of the control (age-and education-matched) group (n = 19) and the early PD group (n = 16) was comparable with each other, and both groups showed better performance than the later PD group (n = 16). On the IGT, the control group learned better than both of the PD groups. The control and early PD groups were similar on measures from the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Stroop Test, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Beck Depression Inventory II. Conclusions:The PCL and IGT tasks appear to rely on different parts of the frontostriatal circuitry in patients with early PD. The current finding that IGT performance was impaired in early PD implies ventromedial prefrontal cortical dysfunction early in the disease.
We have recently cast doubt (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998) on the view that encoding and retrieval processes in human memory are similar. Divided attention at encoding was shown to reduce memory performance significantly, whereas divided attention at retrieval affected memory performance only minimally. In this article we examined this asymmetry further by using more difficult retrieval tasks, which require substantial effort. In one experiment, subjects had to encode and retrieve lists of unfamiliar name-nouns combinations attached to people's photographs, and in the other, subjects had to encode words that were either strong or weak associates of the cues presented with them and then to retrieve those words with either intra- or extra-list cues. The results of both experiments showed that unlike division of attention at encoding, which reduces memory performance markedly, division of attention at retrieval has almost no effect on memory performance, but was accompanied by an increase in secondary-task cost. Such findings again illustrated the resiliency of retrieval processes to manipulations involving the withdrawal of attention. We contend that retrieval processes are obligatory or protected, but that they require attentional resources for their execution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.