Divided attention, aging, and priming in exemplar generation and category verification

Abstract

Transfer-appropriate processing theories differentiate between conceptual-and perceptual-priming tasks. The former are said to be influenced by the nature of processing engaged in at study, but not by changes in modality between study and test; the latter are sensitive to changes in format between study and test, but not to variations in the extent ofsemantic processing at study. In the present experiments, we examined the effects of divided attention and aging on priming in exemplar generation and category verification, two tasks that require access to semantic information at test. Manipulations of attention during encoding affected the extent of priming in exemplar generation, but not in category verification. Priming effects were similar in young and older adults in exemplar generation following study in both full and divided attention. Although older adults did not demonstrate priming in category verification in one experiment, no effects of age or divided attention were observed in a second experiment. In addition, priming in category verification was unaffected by varying the level of processing at encoding. However, the absence of levels-of-processing and attention effects in category verification does not signal that priming in this task has a perceptual basis; priming in category verification was insensitive to modality shifts between study and test. The implications of these fmdings for theories of priming and cognitive aging are considered.Division of attention during encoding is well known to have negative consequences for performance on direct measures of memory, such as recall and recognition, that involve deliberate recollection of prior study episodes (e.g, Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996;Fisk & Schneider, 1984;Kellogg, 1980;Parkin, Reid, & Russo, 1990;Weldon & Jackson-Barrett, 1993). However, the consequences of dividing attention during encoding on indirect memory tasks, in which the task instructions do not mention the relation between the task to be performed and the prior study episodes, are less well understood. It is, for instance, unclear whether we should expect the effects of dividing attention to be uniform across all classes of indirect memory tasks.Recent research on the consequences of dividing attention for indirect measures of memory has been guided largely by the transfer-appropriate processing frame-

Accurate forced-choice recognition without awareness of memory retrieval

“…Other studies have indicated that divided attention reduces priming to a far lesser extent than explicit memory (e.g., Rajaram et al 2001). These relationships concern implicit memory for perceptual stimulus attributes (perceptual priming), whereas conceptual priming is reduced by divided attention to a similar extent as explicit memory (Mulligan 1998;Light et al 2000). Moreover, behavioral estimates of explicit familiarity are reduced by divided attention, but to a lesser extent than estimates of explicit recollection (Yonelinas 2001).…”

Capturing conceptual implicit memory: The time it takes to produce an association

“…This result indicates that conceptual implicit memory may have more in common with conceptual explicit memory than with perceptual implicit memory. Similar effects of divided attention at encoding on category exemplar generation have been found by other researchers as well (e.g., Light, Prull, & Kennison, 2000). Thus, conceptual implicit memory appears to be measurable in normal participants, but it is difficult to isolate from the influences of explicit retrieval (whether intentional or unintentional), and it is difficult to test without participants' awareness.…”

“…Horton and colleagues (Horton, Wilson, & Evans, 2001;Horton, Wilson, Vonk, Kirby, & Nielsen, 2005) have recently used RT data to demonstrate that explicit retrieval was not used in their tests of conceptual implicit memory. Other researchers (e.g., Light et al, 2000;Zeelenberg, 2005) have also demonstrated that RT is a valuable measure of conceptual implicit memory.…”

“…A key advantage of using RT instead of accuracy as the dependent measure is that explicit retrieval strategies will be much less likely to be a problem (see Bentin, Moscovitch, & Nirhod, 1998;Gabrieli et al, 1999;Light et al, 2000). As in the perceptual implicit memory test of speeded word reading (e.g., MacDonald & MacLeod, 1998;MacLeod & Masson, 2000), participants will likely notice that they have previously seen some of the words for which they are being asked to produce associates.…”

Repetition priming mediated by task similarity in semantic classification

“…Some studies (Light, Prull, & Kennison, 2000;Vaidya et al, 1997) have reported that category verification, a task similar to semantic classification, does not respond to levelsof-processing manipulation. In their experiments, a conceptual task different from the category verification was used task during study.…”