A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory

Abstract

A number of investigations have purported to demonstrate that semantic processing does not produce a memorial advantage over nonsemantic processing on implicit tests, as contrasted with the typical advantage of semantic over nonsemantic processing on explicit tests. A review of 166 outcomes from 38 studies that have manipulated processing on implicit tests reveals that on 131 occasions (79%), priming was greater following semantic than it was following nonsemantic processing. This difference was found in both perceptual and conceptual implicit memory tests, as well as in within-and between-subjects designs. It suggests that implicit tests reflect the involvement of both conceptual and perceptual processes. Although explicit contamination may account for some of the processing difference in implicit tests, the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, especially in perceptual implicit tests, makes it an unlikely account for the entire effect.533

Consequences of violating the assumption of independence in the process dissociation procedure: A word fragment completion study

“…As a consequence of this, the difference between the estimates of automatic retrieval under physical and semantic processing should progressively approach zero. This would be in line with failures to find levels ofprocessing effects in indirect/implicit memory tasks (see, e.g., Graf & Mandler, 1984;Hamman & Squire, 1996; but see Brown & Mitchell, 1994).…”

“…Three experiments are presented, and they differ only in the amount oftime allowed for carrying out the orienting task at study. Deep/semantic processing has been shown to induce better performance than does shallow/physical processing in direct memory tasks, while, in general, leaving unaffected performance in indirect memory tasks (see, e.g., Graf & Mandler, 1984;Hamman & Squire, 1996; but see Brown & Mitchell, 1994). As a consequence, it is expected that LOP should exert its effect on the recollection influences of memory, while leaving unaffected the automatic influences of memory.…”

Incidental formation of episodic associations: The importance of sentential context

“…The effect of elaboration has been demonstrated primarily in explicit tests of memory, but also in implicit tests (see, e.g., Bentin, Moscovitch, & Nirhod, 1998; for reviews, see Brown & Mitchell, 1994;Challis & Brodbeck, 1992;Roediger & McDermott, 1993;Schacter & McGlynn, 1989). 7 As was described in the introduction, the present results extend these findings over incidental association formation.…”

Cross-Modal Priming and Explicit Memory in Patients with Verbal Production Deficits

“…Because semantic features are shared by visual and auditory words, cross-modal implicit memory could reflect semantic priming (e.g., Bassili et al, 1989). Although the semantic hypothesis seems inconsistent with previously discussed observations that implicit memory is affected little by semantic variables, the idea remains viable because small LOP effects on implicit memory are sometimes observed (Brown & Mitchell, 1994;Challis & Brodbeck, 1992;Thapar & Greene, 1994).…”