Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated that divided attention at encoding significantly reduces memory performance, whereas divided attention at retrieval affects memory performance only minimally. However, the possibility exists that retrieval processes have shown such resilience because the concurrent tasks used have often not been very demanding. To assess this possibility, we used independent manipulations of the concurrent task during either encoding or retrieval that included stimulus-response compatibility and participant-versus experimenter-controlled pace. In addition, we manipulated the distribution of practice that the participants received with the primary and the concurrent tasks. The results replicated and extended those recently reported by Rohrer and Pashler (2003), indicating that although memory performance is negatively affected by divided attention at retrieval, especially with noncompatible stimulus-response mapping in the concurrent task, this effect was much smaller than that at encoding, in line with the asymmetry notion. Furthermore, experimenter versus participant control of the concurrent task had no effect on memory retrieval. Finally, under conditions of equal practice with both the memory and the concurrent tasks, memory retrieval was affected only to a small degree. In contrast to encoding processes, the processes involved in retrieval accuracy appear, in many cases, to be less interrupted by divided attention, although this protection requires substantial resources.

Dual-task interference in visual working memory: A limitation in storage capacity but not in encoding or retrieval

“…Second, and most importantly, there is considerable evidence to suggest that there is an asymmetric pattern of interference between retrieval and secondary task demands in dual-task settings. Specifically, retrieval efficacy is rarely affected by the concurrent performance of a continuously demanding secondary task, but retrieval may significantly impair that secondary task's performance (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Kellogg, Cocklin, & Bourne, 1982; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Perretta, & Tonev, 2000; Naveh-Benjamin, Kilb, & Fisher, 2006). Thus, retrieval from WM appears to be an obligatory, protected process that is unimpaired by concurrent task demands (Craik et al, 1996; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin et al, 2000, 2006).…”

The effects of dividing attention on the encoding and performance of novel naturalistic actions

“…Although possible, it should be noted that: (a) the same secondary task which had a small interference eVect on retrieval of NNAs, had a large eVect on their encoding in Experiment 1, and, (b) increases in the diYculty of memory retrieval in Experiment 2 decreased secondary task performance, not memory for NNAs (for further discussion, see Naveh-Benjamin, Kilb, & Fisher, 2006). An alternative possibility is that participants focused on the secondary lag 1 task when attention was divided at encoding, but focused on the NNA task when attention was divided at retrieval.…”

The role of reduced working memory storage and processing resources in the associative memory deficit of older adults: simulation studies with younger adults

“…Some previous DA studies have reported that the DA task disrupts memory performance minimally when it is administrated at retrieval compared to when it is performed during the encoding of information (e.g., Baddeley, Lewis, Eldridge, & Thomson, 1984;Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996;Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998;Naveh-Benjamin, Kilb, & Fisher, 2006). In addition, Park, Smith, Dudley, and Lafronza (1989) reported that the effect of DA was very small during retrieval and that the effect was similar for young and older adults.…”