An attempt to distinguish between kinematic and motor memory components

Zimmer, Hubert D.; Engelkamp, Johannes

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(85)90036-8

Cited by 51 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the literature (e.g., Hornstein & Mulligan, 2001;Zimmer & Engelkamp, 1985) explains the facilitation in terms of allocentric and egocentric information. For example, Zimmer and Engelkamp distinguished between kinematic (spatial location in visual space) and kinesthetic (muscle feedback) information components, and reported a partial dissociation in their representation in memory.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor and visual codes interact to facilitate visuospatial memory performance

Chum

Bekkering

Dodd

et al. 2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial working memory system constantly updates spatial representations and many studies have focused on the underlying principles of the encoding and maintenance of visual information. Here we investigated the question of how the production of actions influences spatial working memory. Participants were given a task that required concurrent maintenance of two spatial arrays, one encoded by visual observation accompanied with pointing movements, the other by only visual observation. Across two experiments, movement during encoding was found to facilitate recognition of spatial arrays in a load-dependent manner. The results suggest an action-based encoding principle within the working memory system, and possible underlying action-related mechanisms are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor and visual codes interact to facilitate visuospatial memory performance

Chum

Bekkering

Dodd

et al. 2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cohen and his colleagues (e.g., Cohen, 1981;Cohen, Peterson, & Mantini-Atkinson, 1987;Cohen, Sandler, & Schroeder, 1987) and Engelkamp and his colleagues (e.g., Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1984;Zimmer & Engelkamp, 1985) have found that items are remembered better if they are enacted by the subject than if the statement is simply heard. For example, Krumnacker (1980, cited in Engelkamp &Zimmer, 1994) gave subjects 48 action statements to remember.…”

Section: Memory For Action Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imagination inflation for action events: Repeated imaginings lead to illusory recollections

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, subjects heard simple action statements (e.g., "Break the toothpick"), and, in some conditions, they also performed the action or imagined performing the action. In a second session that occurred at a later point (10 min, 24 h, 1 week, or 2 weeks later), subjects imagined performing actions one, three, or fivetimes. Some imagined actions represented statements heard, imagined, or performed in the first session, whereas other statements were new in the second session. During a third (test) phase, subjects were instructed to recognize statements only if they had occurred during the first session and, if recognized, to tell whether the action statement had been carried out, imagined, or merely heard. The primary finding was that increasing the number of imaginings during the second session caused subjects to remember later that they had performed an action during the first session when in fact they had not (imagination inflation). This outcome occurred both for statements that subjects had heard but not performed during the first session and for statements that had never been heard during the first session. The results are generally consistent with Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay's (1993) source monitoring framework and reveal a powerful memory illusion: Imagining performance of an action can cause its recollection as actually having been carried out.Imagery has long been known to exert powerful effects on remembering. The ancient Greeks discovered that imagining items in particular locations was an aid to remembering them and experimental psychologists have long studied the power of imagery as an aid to remembering (e.g., Bower, 1970;Paivio, 1969Paivio, , 1986. Ofcourse, when imagery is used as a mnemonic technique, the interest is in improving recollection for facts or events that the rememberer would like to recall at some later point. However, people use imagery for many other purposesin daydreaming, in fantasies, in setting goals, in wishing for future events, and in thinking about past events. The question we ask in the present paper is whether imagining might have deleterious consequences for memory, as well as the oft-noted positive effects. Briefly, the question we ask is: If people imagine performing some action, might they later remember that they actually did it?

show abstract

“…A larger set ofexamples for SPTs has been provided by Cohen (1981) and by Zimmer and Engelkamp (1985).…”

Section: Die Karten Mischen (Shuffle the Playing Cards) Die Flasche mentioning

confidence: 99%

Levels-of-processing effects in subject-performed tasks

Zimmer

Engelkamp

1999

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects encode a list of simple action phrases (e.g., thumb through a book, knock at the door) by performing these actions during learning. In three experiments, we investigated the size of the levels-of-processing effects in SPTs as compared with those in standard verbal learning tasks (VTs). Subjects under SPT and VTconditions learned lists of action phrases in a surface or a conceptual orienting task. Under both encoding conditions, the subjects recalled fewer items with surface orienting tasks than with conceptual orienting tasks, but the levels-ofprocessing effects were strongly reduced in the SPT condition. In the SPT condition, items that were encoded in a surface orienting task were still substantially recalled. The items were recalled almost as well as the conceptually encoded items in the VT condition. The distinct reduction of the levels-ofprocessing effect is caused by the fact that, in SPT encoding even with a verbal surface orienting task, subjects process conceptual information in order to perform the denoted action. We attribute the small conceptual advantage, which remains with SPT despite the conceptual processing for performing, to the fact that items are not as well integrated into memory as they are when conceptual processing is focused on the action component, rather than on the semantic contexts. This lower integration reduces the accessibility of items in the verbal surface task, even with SPT encoding.In subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects are given verbal commands requiring them to symbolically perform a series of mini tasks-for example, cut the bread, tear the paper, paint the table,fill up the bottle. Subjects perform these actions either with real objects or with imaginary objects and, with that, attempt to memorize the actions. This is later followed by free recall or recognition of the verbal commands. In all of these studies, it was consistently observed that memory in SPTs was better than that under other study conditions, particularly those involving verbal tasks (VTs) in which subjects only listened to action phrases (for reviews, see

show abstract

An attempt to distinguish between kinematic and motor memory components

Cited by 51 publications

References 19 publications

Motor and visual codes interact to facilitate visuospatial memory performance

Motor and visual codes interact to facilitate visuospatial memory performance

Imagination inflation for action events: Repeated imaginings lead to illusory recollections

Levels-of-processing effects in subject-performed tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About