The testing effect under divided attention.

Abstract

Memory retrieval often enhances later memory compared with restudying (i.e., the testing effect), indicating that retrieval does not simply reveal but also modifies memory representations. Dividing attention (DA) during encoding greatly disrupts later memory performance while DA during retrieval typically has modest effects-but what of the memory-modifying effects of retrieval? If these effects are similar to study-based encoding, they should be greatly disrupted by DA, a possibility consistent with elaborative and effortful accounts of the testing effect. Alternatively, the mnemonic consequences of retrieval may be largely resilient to distraction, like retrieval itself. In 3 experiments, participants studied word pairs (Phase 1) then engaged in restudy of some pairs and retrieval of others (Phase 2), followed by a final cued-recall test (Phase 3). Phase 2 restudy and retrieval occurred under full attention (FA) or DA. The experiments were designed to induce either material-specific (Experiments 1 and 2) or material-general (Experiment 3) interference, as well as to produce comparable secondary task performance between the restudy and retrieval groups (Experiments 2 and 3). Consistent with prior research, retrieval improved final recall (i.e., the testing effect) whereas DA disrupted final recall. Critically, the 2 factors interacted such that the negative effect of DA on final recall was substantial in the restudy condition but quite modest in the retrieval condition-resulting in a larger testing effect in the DA than FA condition. The encoding effects of retrieval seem resilient to distraction which has implications for theories of the testing effect. (PsycINFO Database Record

Can the Testing Effect for General Knowledge Facts Be Influenced by Distraction due to Divided Attention or Experimentally Induced Anxious Mood?

“…After restricting our analyses on the facts that had been practiced when the divided-attention manipulation worked as expected, there was now a significant practice mode × attention interaction, F (1,93) = 4.13, MSE = 0.02, p = 0.045, and ηp2 = 0.04, showing that the testing effect was stronger in the divided attention (0.09) than in the full attention condition (0.05). This was in line with the findings of Buchin and Mulligan (2017, see also Mulligan and Picklesimer, 2016).…”

“…We conducted a priori power analysis by using G ∗ Power, with power = 0.99, alpha = 0.05, number of groups = 2, number of measurements = 2, correlation among repeated measures = 0.50, and non-sphericity correction = 1. We used the smallest effect size in Mulligan and Picklesimer (2016)—partial eta-squared (0.07) for the attention (full or divided) × practice mode (restudying or testing) interaction effect (As stated in Footnote 1, we were not aware of Buchin and Mulligan, 2017, prior to Experiment 1’s data collection even though the attention manipulation of that study was indeed more closely similar to the current experiment than Mulligan and Picklesimer). Based on this power analysis, we needed to recruit at least 32 participants in each of the two conditions (full vs. divided attention) to achieve the statistical power of 0.99.…”

Response Format, Not Semantic Activation, Influences the Failed Retrieval Effect

“…Although retrieval is processed preferentially when attention is divided and is unaffected even when performing a dual task in parallel, the encoding and elaboration processes are inhibited under dual tasks (Craik et al., 1996; Mulligan, 2008). In the testing effect, the retrieval process not affecting attentional distribution is considered important, as it does not decrease performance even if a dual task is performed at the time of initial testing (Buchin and Mulligan, 2017). However, the impact of dual task performance on FRE procedures has not been considered.…”

“…In addition, it will be necessary to recall the words retrieved during the initial test at the time of feedback or final test in order to directly investigate whether recalling erroneous information directly promotes learning. Furthermore, in order to examine the possibility that attention was affected when participants typed responses, it may be necessary to retest using a general dual task, following Buchin and Mulligan (2017).…”

Retrieval practice benefits memory precision

“…Both conditions were also given feedback on the accuracy of their answers. The requirement that participants actively respond during the restudy condition mollifies potential concerns that the restudy performance may be disproportionately impacted by instances of inattention or divided attention (Buchin & Mulligan, 2017).…”