Brain regions associated with successful and unsuccessful retrieval of verbal episodic memory as revealed by divided attention

Fernandes, Myra A.; Moscovitch, Morris; Ziegler, Marilyne; Grady, Cheryl L.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.026

Cited by 47 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding replicates our past work in younger (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000, 2003, and older adults (Fernandes et al, 2003(Fernandes et al, , 2005(Fernandes et al, , 2006, of a material-specific pattern of interference from DA at retrieval. As outlined in the introductory section, memory interference will be higher if the materials in the distracting task are similar to those being retrieved, than if materials are dissimilar.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…We did this by computing a percentage decline score for each participant in each DA condition. We have previously used this measure (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000Fernandes et al, 2005) to examine age differences (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2003;Fernandes et al, 2004Fernandes et al, , 2006 in susceptibility to memory interference, as this measure allows us to examine interference in two groups in which overall memory performance differs.…”

Section: Percentage Decline In Memory Under Da Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interference effects from DA at retrieval, however, have been much more variable and appear to be dependent on two related factors: the type of task that is performed concurrently (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000, 2003Fernandes, Davidson, Glisky, & Moscovitch, 2004;Fernandes, Moscovitch, Ziegler, & Grady, 2005;Fernandes, Pacurar, Moscovitch, & Grady, 2006), and the type of memory test. For example, Fernandes and Moscovitch (2000, 2003 showed that the amount of interference produced during recall of unrelated word lists varies, depending on the overlap in materials used in the memory 298 M. A. Fernandes and C. Grady and distracting task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Age Differences in Susceptibility to Memory Interference During Recall of Categorizable but Not Unrelated Word Lists

Fernandes¹,

Grady²

2008

Experimental Aging Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined how divided attention (DA) and aging affect memory, and the use of organizational strategies, during retrieval. Younger and older adults studied a list of either unrelated or categorizable words presented auditorily under full attention, and later recalled them under full attention or DA condition with a word- or digit-monitoring distracting task. The magnitude of memory interference did not interact with age during retrieval of unrelated words. During retrieval of categorizable words, older adults suffered significantly greater memory interference than young in both DA conditions. The number of categories recalled was significantly reduced by the word- but not digit-based distracting task, and this effect did not differ across age groups. The number of words recalled per category was reduced in both DA conditions, in both age groups. Semantic clustering, corrected for total recall score, was reduced in older but not younger adults, in both DA conditions. Findings suggest that older adults cannot make use of strategies, to the same extent as do young, to boost memory for categorized words under DA conditions, leading to amplified memory interference.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Percentage Decline In Memory Under Da Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Age Differences in Susceptibility to Memory Interference During Recall of Categorizable but Not Unrelated Word Lists

Fernandes¹,

Grady²

2008

Experimental Aging Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The component processing view provides a related account of priming (e.g., Fernandes, Moscovitch, Ziegler, & Grady, 2005;Vriezen, Moscovitch, & Bellos, 1995), arguing that test performance is a result of a set of component processes (e.g., visual or auditory feature analysis, lexical access, semantic access, etc. ), and that priming occurs to the extent that the critical components were performed during encoding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of divided attention on auditory priming

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of attention plays a central role in theories of memory, a view supported by a long history of findings that attentional state during encoding affects later memory performance (e.g., Broadbent, 1958;Cowan, 1995;Norman, 1969). Traditional research on this topic has focused on explicit memory. More recently, researchers have addressed the relationship between attention and implicit memory, spurred by the well-documented dissociations between implicit and explicit memory (Mulligan, 2003b;Roediger & McDermott, 1993), as well as the possibility that attention during encoding may not be as crucial to implicit memory as it is to explicit memory.Several initial studies of attention and implicit memory reported the rather startling result that dividing attention reduced explicit test performance but left implicit tests unaffected (e.g., Bentin, Kutas, & Hillyard, 1995;Mulligan & Hartman, 1996;Parkin, Reid, & Russo, 1990;Russo & Parkin, 1993; SchmitterEdgecombe, 1996). Other early studies demonstrated that retention of very poorly attended stimuli is more likely to be detected with implicit than explicit memory tests (e.g., Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1987;Eich, 1984;Jelicic, Bonke, Wolters, & Phaf, 1992;Mandler, Nakamura, & Van Zandt, 1987;Merikle & Reingold, 1991; cf. Berry, Shanks, & Henson, 2006). Such findings imply that attention plays a larger role in encoding for explicit than implicit memory. Other researchers have gone farther in interpreting these results, proposing that implicit memory is chiefly the result of automatic encoding processes (the automaticity hypothesis, e.g., Aloisi, McKone, & Heubeck, 2004;Bentin et al., 1995;Shallice et al., 1994;Szymanski & MacLeod, 1996;Wolters & Prinsen, 1997). Much subsequent research on this topic took place under the rubric of the transfer-appropriateprocessing (TAP) view of implicit and explicit memory (e.g., Roediger, 1990;Roediger & McDermott, 1993), which provides a more differentiated view based on the distinction between conceptual and perceptual priming. This view suggests that implicit tests drawing heavily on conceptual processes should depend heavily on attention during encoding. However, perceptual priming tasks, sensitive to relatively automatic perceptual encoding processes (Roediger, 1990), should be little affected by manipulations of attention (see Mulligan & Hartman, 1996, for a more detailed development of the TAP predictions). With respect to conceptual implicit memory, these expectations are largely borne out: divided attention typically reduces conceptual priming (see Mulligan & Brown, 2003, for a review).Studies of perceptual implicit tests, however, have produced mixed results. As noted above, some of the initial studies on this topic found no effect of divided attention on perceptual priming despite robust effects on explicit memory (e.g., Mulligan & Hartman, 1996;Russo & Parkin, 1993). For example, in Mulligan and Hartman (1996), study words were presented visually under one of two conditions. In the full attention (FA) condition, th...

show abstract

“…In contrast, other studies have found large, deleterious effects of DA on recall and recognition (Carrier & Pashler, 1995;Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000Hicks & Marsh, 2000;Jacoby, 1991;Lozito & Mulligan, 2006), showing that at least under some circumstances, memory retrieval can be disrupted by DA. Fernandes and Moscovitch (2000) and Fernandes, Moscovitch, Zeigler, and Grady (2005) documented one such set of conditions. These researchers varied the match between the materials used on the memory test (words) and the materials used in the secondary task (words or digits).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the role of attention during implicit memory retrieval

Lozito

Mulligan

2010

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe role of attention during implicit memory retrieval was assessed using a test-phase division of attention. Implicit retrieval is dissociable into perceptual and conceptual forms. Implicit retrieval is further dissociable into tests that involve stimulus identification or stimulus production. The present study used implicit tests that varied on these dimensions. Experiment 1 used a perceptual identification test; Experiment 2 used a word-stem completion test; and Experiment 3 used a category-exemplar production test. Attention was divided with one of several secondary tasks. None of the secondary tasks reduced levels of priming for any of the implicit tests. Furthermore, implicit retrieval generally facilitated secondary task performance rather than producing secondary task costs as is typical with explicit memory. A fourth experiment indicated that explicit recall was negatively affected by most of the secondary tasks, and exhibited a different pattern of secondary task costs. All of the above is consistent with the idea that implicit retrieval is automatic.

show abstract

Brain regions associated with successful and unsuccessful retrieval of verbal episodic memory as revealed by divided attention

Cited by 47 publications

References 52 publications

Age Differences in Susceptibility to Memory Interference During Recall of Categorizable but Not Unrelated Word Lists

Age Differences in Susceptibility to Memory Interference During Recall of Categorizable but Not Unrelated Word Lists

The effects of divided attention on auditory priming

Exploring the role of attention during implicit memory retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About