Effects of divided attention in the word-fragment completion task with unique and multiple solutions

Abstract

The Identification-Production Hypothesis predicts that the effect of divided attention (DA) at encoding should be larger when priming tasks involve divergent search processes through many different competitors, because they are supposed to place heavier attentional demands on frontal lobe functions (Gabrieli, Vaidya, Stone et al., 1999). This hypothesis was tested in two experiments using the Word Fragment Completion (WFC) task with unique solutions (which relies on convergent lexical search towards single appropriate representations: the identification version of the WFC) or multiple solutions (which implies a competition between equally plausible responses: the production version of the WFC). In Experiment 1 the two versions of the completion task were found to be equally unaffected by the imposition of a short-term memory load at encoding. In Experiment 2 the reduction of target words' study time (from 2.5 to 1 s), and the use of a blocked (rather than mixed) design, significantly diminished the level of priming in the DA condition: However, contrary to the predictions, the degree of impairment was not greater for multiple-solution fragments. Results are in line with recent failures to support the identification-production hypothesis in normal adults (Geraci, 2006; Prull, 2004)

Is conceptual implicit memory impaired in schizophrenia? Evidence from lexical decision and category verification

“…However, besides the perceptual/ conceptual distinction, the aforementioned tasks also differ in the involvement of identification/production processes. Word-fragment completion is primarily based on identification processes because in most studies (including those by Ruiz et al, 2007, andSoler et al, 2007), the to-be-solved fragments have unique solutions, implying small or no competition during the retrieval phase (Spataro et al, 2010). In contrast, the category generation task is heavily based on production processes (Gabrieli et al, 1999;Vaidya et al, 1997) because participants are instructed to produce the first instances that come to mind in response to a category label: in these conditions, the encoded exemplars must be selected among multiple competing responses.…”

“…For instance, in word-fragment completion, participants are presented with words at encoding (e.g., scissor) and are later asked to complete unique-solution fragments (e.g., s _ _ ss _ r) with the first words that come to mind. Repetition priming is indicated by higher completion rates for fragments corresponding to previously processed (old) words than for fragments corresponding to previously unprocessed (new) words (Spataro, Mulligan, & Rossi-Arnaud, 2010).…”

Does long-term object priming depend on the explicit detection of object identity at encoding?

“…We believe that our results are more consistent with the identification/production view. There is some evidence that the negative effects of manipulating attention at encoding are most pronounced during production than identification tasks ( Gabrieli et al, 1999 ), although this remains somewhat controversial (e.g., Light et al, 2000 ; Spataro et al, 2010 ; Prull, 2013 ). The general idea is that the test cues in production tasks (e.g., word-stem completion) are more likely to initiate response competition amongst multiple plausible alternatives (e.g., CARROT and CARPET are valid completions for the word stem CAR___).…”

Attention and implicit memory: priming-induced benefits and costs have distinct attentional requirements

“…Further investigation, however, revealed that attentional manipulations had variable effects across different implicit memory tasks, reducing priming on some tasks (e.g., Gabrieli, et al, 1999; Light, Prull, & Kennison, 2000; Mulligan & Hartman, 1996; Rajaram, Srinivas, & Travers, 2001; Schmitter-Edgecombe, 1999), but not on others (e.g., Bentin, Kutas, & Hillyard, 1995; Mulligan & Hartman, 1996; Mulligan & Peterson, 2008; Smith & Oscar-Berman, 1990; Spataro, Mulligan, & Rossi-Arnaud, 2010; Spataro, Mulligan, & Rossi-Arnaud, 2011). These mixed findings gave rise to various theories aiming to delineate the critical features of priming effects that do or do not require attention at encoding (e.g., Gabrieli, et al, 1999; Mulligan, 1998).…”