Encoding Variability and Cuing in Generative Processing

Soraci, Sal A.; Carlin, Michael T.; Chechile, Richard A.; Franks, Jeffery J.; Wills, Theodore W.; Watanabe, Tomoyuki

doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2661

Cited by 36 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…reaction, Wills et al (2000) explained their findings in terms of the multiple-cue account of the incongruous item generation effect (Soraci et al, 1999, Soraci et al, 1994. Several studies have shown that the presence and cue occurred immediately after the sentence, whereas in other cases, the cue was delayed by 5 sec.…”

Section: Effort After Meaning and Generationmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…There is a curious tendency for the generation effect (with verbal stimuli) to disappear in between-subjects and blocked-list within-subjects designs (Begg & Snider, 1987;Hirshman & Bjork, 1988;Sla mecka & Katsaiti, 1987). By contrast, incongruous item generation effects have been demonstrated in between-subjects designs (Soraci et al, 1999;Soraci et al, 1994). The influence of experimental design is by no means limited to the generation effect, for a host of other established memory phenomena, such as the word frequency, bizarreness, enactment, and perceptual interference effects, are modulated by experimental design, or list composition, as well (for a recent review, see McDaniel & Bugg, 2008).…”

Section: Effort After Meaning and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between comprehension and memory? Ebbinghaus (1885Ebbinghaus ( /1964 began the scientific study of memory by attempting to avoid this question. By studying memory for three-letter trigrams under controlled experimental conditions, he assumed that he would not have to be concerned about the variability in how subjects understood or related to the stimuli. Nonetheless, Ebbinghaus noted that the lists of syllables he memorized exhibit very important and almost incomprehensible variations as to the ease or difficulty with which they are learned. It even appears from this point of view as if the differences between sense and nonsense material were not nearly as great as one would be inclined a priori to imagine. (p. 23) Others who followed in Ebbinghaus's footsteps measured differences in the meaningfulness of nonsense syllables (e.g., Archer, 1960;Glaze, 1928;Hull, 1933) in order to afford researchers better experimental control over these presumed variations in learning (see also Jenkins, 1985). Even the plainest materials seem to require an effort to find meaningfulness in order to comprehend and remember them (e.g., Prytulak, 1971).In contrast to Ebbinghaus's (1885/1964) approach, Bartlett (1932) presumed a direct relationship between processes involved in comprehension and acts of remembering. Specifically, Bartlett proposed that individuals engaged in a process of "effort after meaning," of which he wrote, it is fitting to speak of every human cognitive reaction-perceiving, imaging, remembering, thinking, and reasoning-as an effort after meaning. Certain of the tendencies which the subject brings with him into the situation with which he is called upon to deal are utilized so as to make his reaction the "easiest," or the least disagreeable, or the quickest and least obstructed that is at the time possible. When we try to discover how this is done we find that always it is by an effort to connect what is given with something else. (p. 44) In experiencing the world, humans presumably bring their past knowledge to bear on understanding current happenings. When it comes to remembering past occurrences, Bartlett argued that people attempt to make their recollections conform to cultural expectations, prior background knowledge, or the current context.To directly examine effort after meaning as it relates to memory, Auble and Franks (1978) developed an ingenious experimental paradigm in which subjects heard and later attempted to recall ambiguous sentences, such as "The clothes were ruined because the sign vanished," that were presented with or without disambiguating cues (i.e., wet paint). Where cues were provided, their conditions of presentation varied. In a control condition, the cue was meaningfully embedded within the sentence (i.e., "The clothes were ruined because the wet paint sign vanished"). In other conditions, the sentence preceded the cue. In four experiments, we examined free recall of ambiguous sentences with or without corresponding cues to facilitate comprehension, using A...

show abstract

Section: Effort After Meaning and Generationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Effort After Meaning and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The comparison of fixed versus varied repetition in individuals with intact memory has generated an extensive literature, and although some studies have suggested a benefit associated with encoding items under varied conditions (Glenberg, 1979;Klein & Saltz, 1976;Paivio, 1974), others have found either no effect or a negative effect (Postman & Knecht, 1983;Soraci et al, 1999;Young & Bellezza, 1982). While most of the research on encoding variability has entailed recall tasks, similarly conflicting results have been obtained with recognition tasks (e.g., Ciccone et al, 1975;Winograd & Geis, 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all repetition is alike: Different benefits of repetition in amnesia and normal memory

Verfaellie

Rajaram

Fossum

et al. 2008

J Inter Neuropsych Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is well known that repetition can enhance memory in amnesia, little is known about which forms of repetition are most beneficial. This study compared the effect on recognition memory of repetition of words in the same semantic context and in varied semantic contexts. To gain insight into the mechanisms by which these forms of repetition affect performance, participants were asked to make Remember0Know judgments during recognition. These judgments were used to make inferences about the contribution of recollection and familiarity to performance. For individuals with intact memory, the two forms of repetition were equally beneficial to overall recognition, and were associated with both enhanced Remember and Know responses. However, varied repetition was associated with a higher likelihood of Remember responses than was fixed repetition. The two forms of repetition also conferred equivalent benefits on overall recognition in amnesia, but in both cases, this enhancement was manifest exclusively in enhanced Know responses. We conclude that the repetition of information, and especially repetition in varied contexts, enhances recollection in individuals with intact memory, but exclusively affects familiarity in patients with severe amnesia. (JINS, 2008, 14, 365-372.)

show abstract

“…Soraci et al (1999) demonstrated important cueing principles involved in the generation effect, and that provide the theoretical basis for the memory work described below. The five basic cueing conditions employed by Soraci et al are Soraci et al (1999) in their study of generative processing and memory enhancement fragments used had multiple possible solutions. The congruous cues determined the proper solution from the alternatives.…”

Section: Enhancing Memory Performances In Those With Intellectual Dismentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The effect has been demonstrated experimentally and in applied contexts (e.g., McNamara, 1995;Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Soraci et al (1999) demonstrated important cueing principles involved in the generation effect, and that provide the theoretical basis for the memory work described below. The five basic cueing conditions employed by Soraci et al are Soraci et al (1999) in their study of generative processing and memory enhancement fragments used had multiple possible solutions.…”

Section: Enhancing Memory Performances In Those With Intellectual Dismentioning

confidence: 89%

Enhancing Cognitive Performances of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: A Human Factors Approach

Carlin¹

2012

Latest Findings in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Encoding Variability and Cuing in Generative Processing

Cited by 36 publications

References 31 publications

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Not all repetition is alike: Different benefits of repetition in amnesia and normal memory

Enhancing Cognitive Performances of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: A Human Factors Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About