Levels of processing: A framework for memory research

Craik, Fergus I. M.; Lockhart, Robert S.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x

Cited by 7,956 publications

(5,013 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

261

Mentioning

4,574

Contrasting

Unclassified

158

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a pencil is not inherently related to survival, although it might be in a context in which it could be used as a weapon or as a device for writing a note that secured freedom or food. The notion that our memory systems are sensitive primarily to the quality of item processing, of course, has been central to memory theory for decades (e.g., Craik & Lockhart, 1972).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention.

Nairne

Thompson

Pandeirada

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

404

830

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors investigated the idea that memory systems might have evolved to help us remember fitness-relevant information-specifically, information relevant to survival. In 4 incidental learning experiments, people were asked to rate common nouns for their survival relevance (e.g., in securing food, water, or protection from predators); in control conditions, the same words were rated for pleasantness, relevance to moving to a foreign land, or personal relevance. In surprise retention tests, participants consistently showed the best memory when words were rated for survival; the survival advantage held across recall, recognition, and for both within-subject and between-subjects designs. These findings suggest that memory systems are "tuned" to remember information that is processed for fitness, perhaps as a result of survival advantages accrued in the past.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention.

Nairne

Thompson

Pandeirada

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

404

830

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We do not claim, however, that attention is not involved in memorizations, and there is a wealth of evidence showing that attention (or at least active processing) is used in memorization, starting with the levels of processing theory (see, among many others, e.g., Chen & Cowan, 2009;Craik & Lockhart, 1972;Lepsien & Nobre, 2007;Majerus et al, 2014;Morey & Bieler, 2013;Vergauwe et al, 2014).…”

Section: Goals and Limitations Of The Current Proofsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Interference and memory capacity limitations.

Endress

Szabó

2017

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. However, the origins of these capacity limitations are debated, and generally attributed to active, attentional processes. Here, we show that the existence of interference among items in memory mathematically guarantees fixed and limited capacity limits under very general conditions, irrespective of any processing assumptions. Assuming that interference (i) increases with the number of interfering items and (ii) brings memory performance to chance levels for large numbers of interfering items, capacity limits are a simple function of the relative influence of memorization and interference. In contrast, we show that time-based memory limitations do not lead to fixed memory capacity limitations that are independent of the timing properties of an experiment. We show that interference can mimic both slot-like and continuous resource-like memory limitations, suggesting that these types of memory performance might not be as different as commonly believed. We speculate that slot-like WM limitations might arise from crowding-like phenomena in memory when participants have to retrieve items. Further, based on earlier research on parallel attention and enumeration, we suggest that crowding-like phenomena might be a common reason for the three major cognitive capacity limitations. As suggested by Miller (1956) and Cowan (2001), these capacity limitations might thus arise due to a common reason, even though they likely rely on distinct processes. Permanent repository link:

show abstract

“…the same N400 effects would be expected for both error conditions as in Experiment 1. It is also possible that irrelevant speech is processed using the same mechanisms as for relevant speech but the processing is more shallow (Chwilla et al, 1995;Craik and Lockhart, 1972). In that case, both error types are expected to yield similar N400 effects, but the effects should be larger than in Experiment 1.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Task-relevant Monitoring Of Speech Errorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oWhen we perceive speech, our goal is to extract the meaning of the verbal message which includes semantic processing. However, how deeply do we process speech in different situations? In two experiments, native Dutch participants heard spoken sentences describing simultaneously presented pictures. Sentences either correctly described the pictures or contained an anomalous final word (i.e. a semantically or phonologically incongruent word). In the first experiment, spoken sentences were task-irrelevant and both anomalous conditions elicited similar centro-parietal N400s that were larger in amplitude than the N400 for the correct condition. In the second experiment, we ensured that participants processed the same stimuli semantically. In an early time window, we found similar phonological mismatch negativities for both anomalous conditions compared to the correct condition. These negativities were followed by an N400 that was larger for semantic than phonological errors. Together, these data suggest that we process speech semantically, even if the speech is task-irrelevant. Once listeners allocate more cognitive resources to the processing of speech, we suggest that they make predictions for upcoming words, presumably by means of the production system and an internal monitoring loop, to facilitate lexical processing of the perceived speech.

show abstract

Levels of processing: A framework for memory research

Cited by 7,956 publications

References 73 publications

Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention.

Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention.

Interference and memory capacity limitations.

Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About