Cognitive effort and memory.

Abstract

We propose that the concept of cognitive effort in memory is both useful and important. Cognitive effort is defined as the engaged proportion of limitedcapacity central processing. It Was hypothesized that this variable might have important memorial consequences and might also be a potential confounding factor in levels-of-processing paradigms. The first experiment tested this possibility using two types of incidental-learning tasks factorially combined with two degrees of effort. It was found that high effort led to better recall than low effort, but that level-of-processing effects were nonsignificant. A second experiment clearly demonstrated the feasibility of using performance on a secondary task as an independent criterion for measuring effort, and two further experiments ruled out alternative accounts of effort effects. A reliable levels-of-processing effect was obtained in the fourth experiment in which the incidental-learning tasks were blocked. Implications and possible future applications of the cognitive effort concept are discussed.

Depressive deficits in memory: Focusing attention improves subsequent recall.

“…These problems, however, are inherent in the ass umption of a unified pool of resources and the concomitant need to asses s the resource demands of a particular task, independent from memory performance. The secondary-task technique is probably the best one ava i lable for those purposes and has produced consistent results across experiments performed with the methods we use in this report (see Hertel, 1989;Hertel & Rude, 1991;Tyler et al, 1979).…”

“…An unexpected test of free recall of targets followed the learning phase. The results from this test and others using similar procedures (Hertel, 1989;Hertel & Rude, 1991;Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979) showed that subjects in a neutral mood recall ed more words from the difficult sentences than from the easy sentences. However, Ellis et al's depressed subjects recalled similar numbers of words from easy and difficult sentences and thereby demonstrated impaired memory for materials from difficult contexts.…”

“…Subjects pressed a key in response to a brief tone that occur red during their exposure to the sentence frame. Longer latencies to respond to the tone are offered as indica tions that fewer resources are available for tone detection, typically because they are allocated in greater proportion to the primary task (see Inhoff & Aeming, 1989;Kerr, 1973;Tyler et al, 1979). 1 Longer response latencies by depressed subjects might also reflect motor retardation or the allocation of attention to task-irrelevant matters.…”

The cognitive-initiative account of depression-related impairments in memory

“…Another way of looking at the results revealed that the students in a sad mood recalled fewer words from the more distinctive contexts than did the students in a neutral mood. In a prior study (Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979), the more distinctive frames, compared to the less distinctive ones, had also produced longer latencies on a secondary task intended to measure cognitive effort, or the amount of attentional resources expended in judging whether the words fit into the frames. Therefore, Ellis et al concluded that the students induced to feel sad had insufficient resources available to encode the target words in those frames.…”

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

“…If so, what is the exact nature of this effort, and what factors influence the amount and quality of effort devoted to stimulus comprehension? Furthermore, how does effort after meaning relate to the cognitive effort required to perform other encoding tasks, such as item generation, semantic elaboration, or anagram problem solving (e.g., Craik & Tulving, 1975;Jacoby, 1978;Slamecka & Graf, 1978;Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979)? The latter question is underscored by the fact that cognitive effort is poorly understood in general, and prior research examining the effects of cognitive effort on memory performance has yielded mixed results (Ellis, Thomas, & Rodriguez, 1984;Zacks, Hasher, Sanft, & Rose, 1983).…”