Divided attention and indirect memory tests

Abstract

Attentional state during acquisition is an important determinant of performance on direct memory tests. In two experiments we investigated the effects of dividing attention during acquisition on conceptually driven and data-driven indirect memory tests. Subjects read a list of words with or without distraction. Memory for the words was later tested with an indirect memory test or a direct memory test that differed only in task instructions. In Experiment 1, the indirect test was categoryexemplar production (a conceptually driven task) and the direct test was category-cued recall. In Experiment 2, the indirect test was word-fragment completion (a data-driven task) and the direct test was word-fragment cued recall. Dividing attention at encoding decreased performance on both direct memory tests. Of the indirect tests, category-exemplar production but not word-fragment completion was affected. The results indicate that conceptually driven indirect memory tests, like direct memory tests, are affected by divided attention, whereas data-driven indirect tests are not. These results are interpreted within the transfer-appropriate processing framework.

Convergent behavioral and neuropsychological evidence for a distinction between identification and production forms of repetition priming.

“…Most fragments have only one answer, so there is little or no response competition. Word-fragment completion is a test of perceptual priming (e.g., Roediger et al, 1989Roediger et al, ,1992Vaidya et al, 1995) that is not reduced by auditory division of attention at study (Experiment 2 in the present study; Gabrieli et al, 1999;Mulligan & Hartman, 1996). The older individuals in the study by Winocur et al (1996) were either high functioning and community dwelling or less high functioning and living in institutions; the latter group did not, however, have AD.…”

“…Two picture study lists and a single test list were constructed by substituting pictures for the corresponding picture names and stems in Lists A, B, and AB. For the divided-attention conditions, digit-letter strings were generated randomly as described by Mulligan and Hartman (1996). Each 6-item-long string began with a digit and was composed of alternating digits (from 1 through 9) and letters (B, C, D, F, G, H, K, J, and L).…”

Entrainment to an auditory signal: Is attention involved?

“…In Experiment 2a participants had the single task of encoding whereas in Experiment 2b they had to combine encoding with the immediate vowel judgment task. In essence, the two experiments compare encoding under full attention to encoding under divided attention, which has been shown to influence memory performance in many previous studies (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000;Mulligan & Hartman, 1996;Shtyrov et al, 2010;Voss et al, 2008).…”

“…We believe that to prove that entrainment is due to general attention, the effect of entrainment should not only be present in tasks that require an immediate response, but it should also translate to secondary tasks, for instance to memory performance. Memory in general has been shown to be affected by general attention manipulations (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000;Mulligan & Hartman, 1996;Shtyrov, Kujala, & Pulvermüller, 2010;Voss, Baym, & Paller, 2008; see also Jacobson, Goren, Lavidor, & Levy, 2012), and modulations of memory for simple auditory stimuli by a preceding rhythm has been invoked by Large and Jones (1999) as support for the DAT, rendering a visual memory task a good candidate to test whether rhythmic entrainment also affects general attention as predicted by the dominant interpretation of the DAT.The DAT offers no neurophysiological account of how modulations of "attentional energy" through auditory entrainment affect cognition such as memory processes. We speculate that auditory entrainment could influence memory in a similar way to other attention manipulations.…”

Untitled

“…This is because all of them include the information that second stimulant affect the first one (Guyton, 1996). Mulligan, 1996; puts forward that conceptional stimulations of indirect memory tests affect attention distraction just like direct memory tests do. However, it is underlined that these results need to be interpret along with the proper transfer of sceleton ruling.…”