Levels-of-processing effects in subject-performed tasks

Abstract

In memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects encode a list of simple action phrases (e.g., thumb through a book, knock at the door) by performing these actions during learning. In three experiments, we investigated the size of the levels-of-processing effects in SPTs as compared with those in standard verbal learning tasks (VTs). Subjects under SPT and VTconditions learned lists of action phrases in a surface or a conceptual orienting task. Under both encoding conditions, the subjects recalled fewer items with surface orienting tasks than with conceptual orienting tasks, but the levels-ofprocessing effects were strongly reduced in the SPT condition. In the SPT condition, items that were encoded in a surface orienting task were still substantially recalled. The items were recalled almost as well as the conceptually encoded items in the VT condition. The distinct reduction of the levels-ofprocessing effect is caused by the fact that, in SPT encoding even with a verbal surface orienting task, subjects process conceptual information in order to perform the denoted action. We attribute the small conceptual advantage, which remains with SPT despite the conceptual processing for performing, to the fact that items are not as well integrated into memory as they are when conceptual processing is focused on the action component, rather than on the semantic contexts. This lower integration reduces the accessibility of items in the verbal surface task, even with SPT encoding.In subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects are given verbal commands requiring them to symbolically perform a series of mini tasks-for example, cut the bread, tear the paper, paint the table,fill up the bottle. Subjects perform these actions either with real objects or with imaginary objects and, with that, attempt to memorize the actions. This is later followed by free recall or recognition of the verbal commands. In all of these studies, it was consistently observed that memory in SPTs was better than that under other study conditions, particularly those involving verbal tasks (VTs) in which subjects only listened to action phrases (for reviews, see

Differential relational encoding of categorical information in memory for action events

“…In contrast, Engelkamp and Zimmer (1994) focused on the motoric nature of SPTs and assumed that more item-specific information should be provided by SPTs than by VTs, but that the degree of categorical relational information should not differ between SPTs and VTs. The key argument for the claim of better itemspecific information in SPTs was that enactment forces subjects to focus more on the individual items than does verbal learning (see, e.g., Engelkamp, 1995;Zimmer & Engelkamp, 1999) and that encoding of action-specific features enhances the representation of each item (Zimmer, 2001). Categorical relational information should not differ between SPTs and VTs because it is based on preexperimental conceptual knowledge and is encoded by the process of spreading activation among the categorically related representations.…”

Directed forgetting of actions by younger and older adults

“…For example, Zimmer and Engelkamp (1999) found that a conceptual orienting task enhanced memory for nonperformed action phrases more than for performed actions. Actions thus seem to be remembered without the use of intentional encoding strategies.…”

Enactment versus conceptual encoding: Equivalent item memory but different source memory

“…When a semantic orienting task is assigned, fore-knowledge of the upcoming memory test is irrelevant (Craik, 1977;Jenkins, 1969, 1973). Similarly, instructional manipulations about whether or not memory will tested do not influence recall after enactment (Watanabe, 2003;Zimmer and Engelkamp, 1999). However, the large majority of enactment studies have used intentional instructions, as we do here.…”

“…A small number of published studies have included some encoding manipulation other than enactment versus intentional-instruction alone, but these have been designed to assess whether the benefit of the other manipulation is additive with the benefit of enactment (Cohen, 1981;Nilsson and Craik, 1990). Zimmer and Engelkamp (1999) asked participants to judge whether a letter triplet occurred in an action phrase (nonconceptual task), or judge whether the described location was a good one for the action (conceptual task, e.g., "apply the postage stamp in the post office" or "…in the pub"). In both cases, the action phrases were performed after the judgment.…”