Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research.

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

doi:10.1037/h0084237

Cited by 356 publications

(190 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This research was supported by Grant AG07854 from NIA. Requests for reprints should be sent to A. S. Brown, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275. on physical aspects ofthe stimulus, yields poorer retention than a semantic level, wherein subjects respond to a meaningful dimension of the stimulus (Craik & Lockhart, 1972;Craik & Tulving, 1975;Lockhart & Craik, 1990). In contrast to this, a number of recent investigations using implicit memory tests claim to have found no effect of variations in levels ofprocessing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of investigations have purported to demonstrate that semantic processing does not produce a memorial advantage over nonsemantic processing on implicit tests, as contrasted with the typical advantage of semantic over nonsemantic processing on explicit tests. A review of 166 outcomes from 38 studies that have manipulated processing on implicit tests reveals that on 131 occasions (79%), priming was greater following semantic than it was following nonsemantic processing. This difference was found in both perceptual and conceptual implicit memory tests, as well as in within-and between-subjects designs. It suggests that implicit tests reflect the involvement of both conceptual and perceptual processes. Although explicit contamination may account for some of the processing difference in implicit tests, the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, especially in perceptual implicit tests, makes it an unlikely account for the entire effect.533

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 73%

A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present context, it is interesting to note that Craik and colleagues have made somewhat similar claims about levels of processing and retention. Empirically, main effects of depth remain even when the conditions of encoding and retrieval are nominally equated (e.g., Craik, 1999;Fisher & Craik, 1977;Lockhart & Craik, 1990). This suggests that factors other than the encoding-retrieval match are needed to explain performance (i.e., processing depth).…”

Section: The Role Of the Encoding± Retrieval Matchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deep processing simply leads to memory traces that are likely to be matched by the conditions of retrieval, especially traditional recall and recognition tests. At best, one might argue that deep processing affords more retrieval opportunities, or perhaps makes retrieval relatively more immune to changes in context (Lockhart & Craik, 1990). But once the encoding process is complete, the major determinant of performance is the encodingretrieval match (Tulving, 1979(Tulving, , 1983.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The myth of the encoding-retrieval match

Nairne

2002

Memory

229

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern memory researchers rely heavily on the encoding-retrieval match, defined as the similarity between coded retrieval cues and previously encoded engrams, to explain variability in retention. The encoding-retrieval match is assumed to be causally and monotonically related to retention, although other factors (such as cue overload) presumably operate in some circumstances. I argue here that the link between the encoding-retrieval match and retention, although generally positive, is essentially correlational rather than causal-much like the link between deep/elaborative processing and retention. Empirically, increasing the functional match between a cue and a target trace can improve, have no effect, or even decrease retention performance depending on the circumstance. We cannot make unequivocal predictions about retention by appealing to the encoding-retrieval match; instead, we should be focusing our attention on the extent to which retrieval cues provide diagnostic information about target occurrence.

show abstract

“…It has been noted that if the to-be-learned material is connected with previous knowledge of the topic and elaborated with imagery and stories rather than processed in a superficial way (for instance, concentrating on the letters of the words to be remembered), it will be retained better (Levels-of-processing view, Lockhart & Craik, 1990;Craik & Lockhart, 1972). These effects are, however, mediated by the sameness of the type of processing and encoding -practically speaking, if an association between words is encoded by rhyming the words, recall will be better following the rhyming task than a semantic task -and vice versa (transfer appropriate processing, Morris, Bransford & Franks, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Repeated Testing to the Development of Vocabulary, Nominal Structures and Verbal Morphology

Metsämuuronen¹,

Mattsson²

2013

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The repeating testing has shown to increase the general proficiency level of the students. Metsämuuronen (2013) showed with an experimental study that the overall achievement level in a secondary language enhanced statistically significantly whit repeated testing design. Previously, Tuvling (1967) and showed with a laboratory experiment that remembering the material studied is the most efficient with repeated testing sessions rather than with repeated studying sessions. An explanation for this, given by Lasry, Levy and Tremblay (2008), is that the repeated testing leads to multiple traces to the memory, which optimizes recall. This study concentrates on the increase in the proficiency level in Vocabulary, Nominal structures and Verbal Morphology after the set of exhaustive testing sessions. It also reviles change in the proficiency levels of the students in these areas during the study process. The experimental group gained more than the control group in all areas though the difference is statistically significant only in the content of Vocabulary. The effect sizes are high (Cohen's d > 1.0). In all areas of interest, the learning curve was of wide U-shape after the elementary period of studies.

show abstract

Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research.

Cited by 356 publications

References 66 publications

A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory

A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory

The myth of the encoding-retrieval match

Effect of Repeated Testing to the Development of Vocabulary, Nominal Structures and Verbal Morphology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About