Effects of dividing attention on the memory-block effect.

Abstract

S. M. Smith and D. R. Tindell (1997) reported that prior study of words that are orthographically similar to the solutions of test word fragments (e.g., studying ANALOGY and completing the fragment A_L _ _GY, whose solution is ALLERGY) reduced the fragment completion rate relative to a baseline condition in which unrelated words were studied. They called this effect the memory-block effect. In the present experiment, the authors replicated this effect using a larger set of materials than that used by S. M. Smith and D. R. Tindell. The authors also found that dividing attention at study eliminated the memory-block effect. This pattern mimicked the effect of dividing attention on recognition memory but differed from the effect on repetition priming effects. The authors suggest that the memory-block effect is driven by a mechanism different from that responsible for producing repetition priming effects in an implicit fragment completion test.

Bias effects in word fragment completion in young and older adults

“…A very different interpretation of costs and benefits in word fragment completion tasks has been offered by Kinoshita and Towgood (2001). These investigators found that, when attention during list study was limited by a concurrent task, benefits (priming) in word fragment completion were unaffected.…”

“…Second, studied words may cause intrusions when fragments for words orthographically similar to them serve as targets (Smith & Tindell, 1997). Although no detailed theoretical mechanisms have been proposed to explain costs and benefits in word fragment completion, these generally have been described in terms of blocking or failure to inhibit currently active, but incorrect, solution candidates (Kinoshita & Towgood, 2001;Ratcliff & McKoon, 1996;Smith & Tindell, 1997).…”

“…Both the inhibition deficit hypothesis and the Kinoshita and Towgood (2001) account permit costs and benefits to be subserved by different mechanisms. This is not the case for pure bias models such as McKoon's (1996, 1997) counter model.…”

“…We also thank Yonatan Goshen-Gottstein and an anonymous reviewer, whose comments helped us to sharpen our thinking on several points. R. F. K. is now at the University of Southern California, Andrus Gerontology Center, Suite 346b, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0191.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to L. L. Light, Department of Psychology, Pitzer College, 1050 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711 (e-mail: llight@hal.pitzer.edu). believe that not all priming reflects bias effects (see, e.g., Bowers, 1999;Keane, Verfaellie, Gabrieli, & Wong, 2000;Kinoshita & Towgood, 2001;Zeelenberg, Wagenmakers, & Raaijmakers, 2002).…”

“…At this juncture, we offer predictions based on three rather different approaches. These are (1) the inhibitory deficit view of Zacks and Hasher (1997), (2) the dual process hypothesis of Kinoshita and Towgood (2001), and (3) bias models of repetition priming.…”