Differential relational encoding of categorical information in memory for action events

Engelkamp, Johannes; Seiler, Kerstin H.; Zimmer, Hubert D.

doi:10.3758/bf03193055

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A repeated recall may have helped participants to detect the possible organization according to action sequences. In a previous study, for enactment encoding knowledge about list organization (before the study phase) did not affect clustering in recall; however, such pre-information was used in a verbal-learning condition, resulting in better clustering and higher net recall [40]. It could be that observation would benefit in a similar way from explicit information about list structure.…”

Section: Implications Of the Present Findingsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Enactment versus Observation: Item-Specific and Relational Processing in Goal-Directed Action Sequences (and Lists of Single Actions)

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the memory-related consequences of learning actions (such as “apply the patch”) by enactment during study, as compared to action observation? Theories converge in postulating that enactment encoding increases item-specific processing, but not the processing of relational information. Typically, in the laboratory enactment encoding is studied for lists of unrelated single actions in which one action execution has no overarching purpose or relation with other actions. In contrast, real-life actions are usually carried out with the intention to achieve such a purpose. When actions are embedded in action sequences, relational information provides efficient retrieval cues. We contrasted memory for single actions with memory for action sequences in three experiments. We found more reliance on relational processing for action-sequences than single actions. To what degree can this relational information be used after enactment versus after the observation of an actor? We found indicators of superior relational processing after observation than enactment in ordered pair recall (Experiment 1A) and in emerging subjective organization of repeated recall protocols (recall runs 2–3, Experiment 2). An indicator of superior item-specific processing after enactment compared to observation was recognition (Experiment 1B, Experiment 2). Similar net recall suggests that observation can be as good a learning strategy as enactment. We discuss possible reasons why these findings only partly converge with previous research and theorizing.

show abstract

Section: Implications Of the Present Findingsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Enactment versus Observation: Item-Specific and Relational Processing in Goal-Directed Action Sequences (and Lists of Single Actions)

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under random presentation of the list items it helped participants in VTs more than in SPTs if they were pre-informed about the categories used in the list (Engelkamp, Seiler, & Zimmer, 2003;. 5 Overall, it seems as if strategic processes may modulate and complete what is going on automatically if categorically structured lists are presented.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Memory for actions: Item and relational information in categorized lists

Engelkamp

Seiler

Zimmer

2003

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enacting action phrases in subject-performed tasks (SPTs) leads to better free recall than hearing or reading the same materials in verbal tasks (VTs). This enactment effect is usually explained by better item-specific information in SPTs than in VTs. The role of relational information is controversial. In the present paper, we will take the multiple recall approach to study the role of item and relational information in memory for actions by computing the number of item gains and the number of item losses over trials. This approach has previously been applied to lists of unrelated action phrases. We applied it to categorically related lists, also allowing a measure of relational information by clustering scores. It was found that SPTs produced more item gains than VTs. This finding confirmed the assumption that SPTs provide better item-specific information than VTs. The number of item losses did not differ between VTs and SPTs. This finding suggests that relational information is equally provided by VTs and SPTs. However, the organizational scores showed a more differentiated picture. Clustering was greater in SPTs than in VTs with randomly presented lists, but not with blocked lists. We suggested that these results, as well as other findings from the literature, could be explained by distinguishing automatic and strategic processes and the types of item associations that are addressed by these processes.

show abstract

“…It has been shown that the number of gains may differ even if the initial recall and the overall recall do not (Burns & Schoff, 1999;Payne, 1986). In order to demonstrate that also for SPTs the number of item gains and losses can differ if the initial recall level is kept constant, we compared the number of item gains and losses from Experiment 1 of the present study (initial free recall = .37, average free recall = .39) with those from Experiment 3 of another study from our laboratory which happened to produce the same initial (.37) and average free recall level (.40, Experiment 3 of Engelkamp & Seiler, 2002). The only difference of both experiments was that in the present experiment unrelated lists were used and in the other one related lists.…”

Section: Engelkamp and Seilermentioning

confidence: 92%

Gains and Losses in Action Memory

Engelkamp

Seiler

2003

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enacting action phrases (SPT for subject-performed task) produces better free recall than only learning the phrases verbally (VT for verbal task). A widespread explanation of the enactment effect is based on the distinction between item-specific and relational information. There is widespread agreement that the main reason is the excellent item-specific encoding by enactment. However, there is little direct evidence in the case of free recall. The role of relational information is less clear. We suggest that content-based relational encoding is better in VTs than in SPTs. In three experiments, in which multiple free recall testing used item gains and losses as indices of item-specific and content-based relational encoding, respectively, these assumptions were confirmed. Consistently more gains (indexing better item-specific encoding) and more losses (indexing poorer relational encoding) were observed in SPTs than in VTs (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the content-based relational information underlying losses is not identical with order-relational information (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, it was shown that an item-specific orienting task for VTs produced an equivalent number of item gains and losses as did the SPT condition.

show abstract

Differential relational encoding of categorical information in memory for action events

Cited by 18 publications

References 51 publications

Enactment versus Observation: Item-Specific and Relational Processing in Goal-Directed Action Sequences (and Lists of Single Actions)

Enactment versus Observation: Item-Specific and Relational Processing in Goal-Directed Action Sequences (and Lists of Single Actions)

Memory for actions: Item and relational information in categorized lists

Gains and Losses in Action Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About