The subjective organization of input and output events in memory

Abstract

In order to study the organization of memory for self-performed actions, 80 participants were presented with 20 action phrases for ten consecutive study-test cycles. Enactment was manipulated both in the input phase and in the output phase by having participants say or enact the phrases during encoding and/or during testing. Enactment at input or output generally enhanced both the quantity and the accuracy of recall and also improved output monitoring. More important, subjective organization, as indexed by the tendency to recall the same two phrases successively across repeated recall tests, was significant for all conditions, even on the first pair of trials, and increased systematically with repeated study-test cycles. Enactment neither impaired nor enhanced the amount of organization, and in all conditions a positive correlation was obtained between recall and subjective organization. Some commonalities in the nature of memory organization were found across all conditions. The results suggest that enactment may lead to more differentiated memory traces, resulting in more accurate recall. Although subjective organization was clearly observed when enactment was involved, its contribution to the enhancement of recall deserves further examination.

Memory for goal-directed sequences of actions: Is doing better than seeing?

“…It is possible that participants in the observation condition used other, subjective organization that our index was not sensitive to (cf. Koriat et al, 1998). This difference between tests implies that it is premature to infer from previous findings (Engelkamp, 1997) that there is never a difference between verbal recall and reenactment.…”

“…Organization or relational processing (e.g., Einstein & Hunt, 1980) establishes efficient retrieval paths, thus improving recall. Most authors agree that enactment does not generally enhance relational processing (e.g., Golly-Häring & Engelkamp, 2003;Koriat, Pearlman-Avnion, & Ben Zur, 1998;von Essen, 2005). On the contrary, the organization of a list of action phrases may even be hindered by enactment (Oloffson, 1996).…”

Individual Differences in Subjective Organization and Verbal Learning in Old Age

“…Thus, subjective organization reflects the degree of concordance between subsequent recall orders of the to-be-learned material that is semantically unrelated (Hultsch, 1974). The unique property of subjective organization as a measure of organization processes in verbal learning is that the basis of organization remains unspecified (Koriat, Pearlman-Avnion, & Ben-Zur, 1998). Hence, subjective organization is by definition composed of individual differences, as any subjective organization reflects the individual recall order.…”

Limits on the role of retrieval cues in memory for actions: Enactment effects in the absence of object cues in the environment

“…In contrast to enhancing item-specific processing and integration, enactment does not generally enhance the processing of relations among successive to-be-learned action phrases (e.g., Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1996Koriat, Pearlman-Avnion, & Ben Zur, 1998;Steffens, 1999;Steffens et al, 2006). Moreover, enactment does not increase item-context integration at a general level.…”