This study investigated the enactment effect from the perspective of the item-order hypothesis (e.g., M. Serra & J. S. Nairne, 1993). The authors assumed that in subject-performed tasks (SPTs), item encoding is improved but order encoding is disrupted compared with experimenter-performed tasks (EPTs), that order encoding of EPTs is only better in pure lists, and that the item--order hypothesis is confined to short lists. Item information was tested in recognition memory tests, order information in order reconstruction tasks, and both item and order information in free-recall tests. The results of 5 experiments using short (8 items) and long lists (24 items) in a design with list type (pure, mixed) and encoding condition (EPT, SPT) as factors supported the hypotheses.

Two experiments focused on whether performing actions described by to-he-remembered phrases during recognition enhances recognition compared with results of a standard verbal recognition test. The enhancement was predicted when the actions described by the phrases had been performed during study, but not when the phrases were verbally encoded by simply listening to and memorizing the material. Both experiments showed that enactment prior to recognition improved memory performance, but only when subjects had encoded by enactment. Experiment 1 also demonstrated that this test-procedure effect was independent of a bizarreness effect, which was observed only with the verbal encoding task. Experiment 2 showed that the effect of enactment during recognition was reduced when subjects used different hands for performing the actions during study and recognition. The findings support the assumption that some kind of motor memory record underlies the enactment effect that occurs when actions are performed during recognition.

Memory for subject-performed tasks-that is, for simple actions such as lifting a pen, which subjects perform overtly-is better than memory for verbal tasks-that is, when subjects only listen to the action phrases. Here I investigated whether this effect depends on actual performance or whether it also shows up when there is only an intention to perform the task. Koriat, Ben-Zur,and Nussbaum (1990) found that the intention to perform items at test enhanced free recall more than did verbal tasks. Brooks and Gardiner (1994), however, were not able to replicate this finding. In four experiments, I attempted to reconcile this discrepancy by comparing subject-performed tasks, to-beperformed tasks, and verbal tasks under different conditions. The outcome depended on whether a within-subjects design or a between-subjects design was used. In the between-subjects design, memory for subject-performed tasks was better than memory for to-be-performed tasks, and both of these led to better recall performance than did verbal tasks. In a within-subjects design, in contrast, memory for to-be-performed tasks was no different from memory for verbal tasks. These results were independent of whether the test mode was congruent or incongruent. Thus, the discrepant findings of Koriat et al. and of Brooks and Gardiner seem to be due to the design used, pointing to encoding processes as the critical variable. The present results are interpreted to show that actual performance of actions at study provides more information than does only the intention to perform actions at test.There have been many studies in recent years on memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs); that is, for simple actions that subjects perform overtly during the encoding phase ofthe experiment, such as lifting a pen, opening a book, or bending a wire. Memory for SPTs proves to be quite good. Subjects recall and recognize more action phrases when they have performed them during study than when they have only listened to them in verbal tasks (VTs; see Cohen, 1989;Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1989, for reviews). This so-called SPT effect has essentially been attributed to the nonverbal encoding ofSPTs. According to Backman and Nilsson (e.g., Backman, Nilsson, & Chalom, 1986;, the SPT effect derives from the rich multidimensional, sensory, and motor encoding of SPTs. Engelkamp and Zimmer (1994;Zimmer & Engelkamp, 1989b) have ascribed the SPT effect mainly to the motor encoding ofSPTs because the SPT effect can also be found when the actions are performed symbolically; that is, overtly but without using real objects (see, e.g., Helstrup, 1987;Knopf, 1991). Moreover, most authors have assumed that SPTs produce a particularly discriminable memory trace that es- pecially facilitates recognition processes (e.g., Knopf, 1991;Nyberg, 1993;Zimmer & Engelkamp, 1989a).An important question regarding the SPT effect is whether it occurs only when actions are actually performed or whether it can also occur when subjects simply plan or intend to perform the action. In a study by Zimmer and Eng...

No abstract

Subject-performed tasks (SPTs; i.e., carrying out the actions during study) improve free recall of action phrases without enhancing relational information. By this mechanism, items pop into a person's mind without active search, and this process especially extends the recency effect. The authors demonstrated the existence of the extended recency effect and its importance for the SPT recall advantage (Experiments 1 and 2). Carrying out the action and not semantic processing caused the effect (Experiment 3). The extended recency effect was also not a consequence of a deliberate last-in, first-out strategy (Experiment 4), and performing a difficult secondary task (an arithmetic task) during recall reduced memory performances but did not influence the extended recency effect (Experiment 5). These data support the theory that performing actions during study enhances the efficiency of an automatic pop-out mechanism in free recall.

No abstract

In memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects encode a list of simple action phrases (e.g.``lift the pen'',``open the book'') by performing these actions during learning. Performing tasks has proved to be a much more e cient type of encoding than verbal tasks (VTs), in which subjects only listen to the action phrases in order to memorise them. It is assumed that good item-speci® c encoding after SPTs plays an important role in the SPT e ect. The role of relational encoding for the SPT e ect is less clear, as is the question of whether SPT encoding is automatic or controlled. Two experiments were conducted to address these issues. Subjects learned lists which were categorically structured in VTs and SPTs, under focal attention or divided attention. The results indicated that relational encoding does not di er between VTs and SPTs, and that free recall is impaired in both cases by divided attention, more so in VTs than in SPTs. It is concluded that the SPT e ect is primarily based on item-speci® c information rather than on relational information, and that VTs are more dependent than SPTs on active encoding.

No abstract