1989
DOI: 10.2307/1422950
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implicit Memory: Effects of Elaboration Depend on Unitization

Abstract: Previous research has demonstrated that performance on implicit memory tests such as word completion and identification does not require elaborative study processing, whereas performance on explicit memory tests such as recall and recognition is strongly dependent on elaborative study processing. We examined the effects of elaborative and nonelaborative study tasks on implicit memory for unitized and nonunitized word pairs. Unitized pairs were represented by common idioms (e.g., SOUR GRAPES) and highly related… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
75
1
1

Year Published

1994
1994
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
10
75
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The effect of elaboration has been demonstrated primarily in explicit tests of memory, but also in implicit tests (see, e.g., Bentin, Moscovitch, & Nirhod, 1998; for reviews, see Brown & Mitchell, 1994;Challis & Brodbeck, 1992;Roediger & McDermott, 1993;Schacter & McGlynn, 1989). 7 As was described in the introduction, the present results extend these findings over incidental association formation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The effect of elaboration has been demonstrated primarily in explicit tests of memory, but also in implicit tests (see, e.g., Bentin, Moscovitch, & Nirhod, 1998; for reviews, see Brown & Mitchell, 1994;Challis & Brodbeck, 1992;Roediger & McDermott, 1993;Schacter & McGlynn, 1989). 7 As was described in the introduction, the present results extend these findings over incidental association formation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other researchers (Goshen-Gottstein & Moscovitch, 1995a;Reingold & Goshen-Gottstein, 1996) looked into facilitated processing of intact over recombined pairs. Both paradigms, however, relied on intentional encoding of the associative information: The pairs of words to be associated were always marked at study, even when they were embedded in a sentential context (Schacter & Graf, 1986;Schacter & McGlynn, 1989), and subjects were informed that in later stages of the experiment their memory for the pairs would be tested. Indeed, one experiment in which pairs of words were not intentionally studied but simply repeated in a lexical decision task failed to demonstrate episodic associative priming (Schrijnemakers & Raaijmakers, 1997).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whenever possible, the levels ofprocessing effect was broken down within each study into separate subconditions, such as number of repetitions (Challis & Brodbeck, 1992;Schacter & McGlynn, 1989), type of stimuli (Schacter, Cooper, & Delaney, 1990;Srinivas & Roediger, 1990), combinations of input and test stimulus (Graf & Ryan, 1990), and retention interval (Chiarello & Hoyer, 1988;Squire, Shimamura, & Graf, 1987). When both recall and recognition tests were given (Besson, Fischler, Boaz, & Raney, 1992;Hashtroudi, Ferguson, Rappold, & Chrosniak, 1988;Light & Singh, 1987), recall was used to represent the explicit test.…”
Section: Overview Of Levels Of Processing Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When both recall and recognition tests were given (Besson, Fischler, Boaz, & Raney, 1992;Hashtroudi, Ferguson, Rappold, & Chrosniak, 1988;Light & Singh, 1987), recall was used to represent the explicit test. When more than two processing tasks were used (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Musen, 1991;Schacter & McGlynn, 1989), only two conditions were selected to represent the most typical semantic and nonsemantic conditions. '…”
Section: Overview Of Levels Of Processing Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation