Enactment versus conceptual encoding: Equivalent item memory but different source memory

Abstract

It has been suggested that performing a physical action (enactment) is an optimally effective encoding task, due to the incorporation of motoric information in the episodic memory trace, and later retrieval of that information. The current study contrasts old/new recognition of objects after enactment to a conceptual encoding task of cost estimation. Both encoding tasks yielded high accuracy, and robust differences in brain activity as compared to new objects, but no differences between encoding tasks. These results are not supportive of the idea that encoding by enactment leads to the spontaneous retrieval of motoric information. When participants were asked to discriminate between the two classes of studied objects during a source memory task, perform-encoded objects elicited higher accuracy and different brain activity than cost-encoded objects. The extent and nature of what was retrieved from memory thus depended on its utility for the assigned memory test: object information during the old/new recognition test, but additional information about the encoding task when necessary for a source memory test. Event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded during the two memory tests showed two orthogonal effects during an early (300-800 ms) time window: a differentiation between studied and unstudied objects, and a test-type (retrieval orientation) effect that was equivalent for old and new objects. Later brain activity (800-1300 ms) differentiated perform-from cost-encoded objects, but only during the source memory test, suggesting temporally distinct phases of retrieval.

The Effects of Language and Semantic Repetition on the Enactment Effect of Action Memory

“…Our viewpoint is in line with the idea that SPT is insensitive to cognitive strategies (e.g., Engelkamp and Zimmer, 1985;, thus partly pushing forward the notion that maybe the motor encoding is the additional factor that is fundamental to the enactment effect. However, it is possible that because SPT itself can be regarded as a deep encoding (e.g., Zimmer et al, 2001;Senkfor et al, 2008;Feyereisen, 2009), it may be repetition strategy in itself. It is therefore possible that the rehearsal used in the present study was not so effective to add something to SPT.…”

Why Arts Integration Improves Long‐Term Retention of Content

“…McDaniel and Bugg (2008) argue that the enactment effect, like the generation effect, can be explained in terms of the unusualness of enacted information and the greater processing this engenders. Senkfor, Van Petten, and Kutas (2008) similarly point to additional processing at the time of encoding as the likely cause of the enactment effect. This additional processing, they argue, is no different in kind from that which occurs for stimuli that lead to ''conceptual'' encoding rather than motor encoding.…”

The Influence of Poststudy Action Congruency on Memory Consolidation

“…Encoding in long-term memory is thought to depend, to a large extent, on attention (e.g., Cowan, 1999 ; Crabb & Dark, 1999 ). When participants enact an action described by a stimulus ( Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1997 ), memory is indeed better, suggesting that motor actions strengthen memory (but see McDaniel & Bugg, 2008 ; Peterson & Mulligan, 2010 ; Senkfor et al, 2008 ). However, if attention is focused on aspects of a stimulus other than the actions associated with it (e.g., on spelling and sound, visual features or meaning aspects unrelated to actions), little or no motor information may be maintained in short-term memory and stored in long-term memory.…”