Production benefits both recollection and familiarity

Ozubko, Jason D.; Gopie, Nigel; MacLeod, Colin M.

doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0165-1

Cited by 67 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we should note that some studies have adopted both R/K and ROC curves using the dual-process signal detection (Yonelinas and Levy 2002) procedures and obtained similar findings on various issues (e.g., Koen and Yonelinas 2010;Ozubko et al 2012). Particularly, there are many studies using R/K and ROC paradigms have found that the proportion of recollection greatly decreases over time (for review, see Sadeh et al 2014).…”

Section: Distinction Between Item and Associative Memoriesmentioning

confidence: 79%

Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are associative memories forgotten more quickly than item memories, and does the level of original learning differentially influence forgetting rates? In this study, we addressed these questions by having participants learn single words and word pairs once (Experiment 1), three times (Experiment 2), and six times (Experiment 3) in a massed learning (ML) or a distributed learning (DL) mode. Then they were tested for item and associative recognition separately after four retention intervals: 10 min, 1 d, 1 wk, and 1 mo. The contribution of recollection and familiarity processes were assessed by participants' remember/know judgments. The results showed that for both item and associative memories, across different degrees of learning, recollection decreased significantly and was the main source of forgetting over time, whereas familiarity remained relatively stable over time. Learning multiple times led to slower forgetting at shorter intervals, depending on recollection and familiarity processes. Compared with massed learning, distributed learning (six times) especially benefited associative memory by increasing recollection, leading to slower forgetting at longer intervals. This study highlighted the importance of process contribution and learning experiences in modulating the forgetting rates of item and associative memories. We interpret these results within the framework of a dual factor representational model of forgetting (as noted in a previous study) in which recollection is more prone to decay over time than familiarity.According to the contents of the retrieved information, memory can be divided into item memory and associative memory (Murdock 1997; Squire and Wixed 2011). Unlike on tests of item memory, on tests of associative memory, participants have to determine whether the relations between items, or item-context relations, are learned during a study. Establishing and maintaining associations between items is an important aspect of episodic memory. Whether associative memory relies on different mechanisms from item memory remains a central issue of memory research (Murdock 1997;Squire et al. 2004;Davachi 2006). Many studies have suggested that they are dissociated in both behavioral mechanisms and neural substrates, with associative memory relying primarily on recollection and item memory, on familiarity (Gardiner et al. 2002;Cohn and Moscovitch 2007;Eichenbaum et al. 2007). In addition, the hippocampus is critical for and more involved in associative memory than in item memory, whereas the opposite holds for the perirhinal cortex (Davachi 2006;Eichenbaum et al. 2007; but see ). Recent evidence, however, suggests that item and associative memory can both depend on recollection and familiarity (Smith et al. 2011), and it is these processes, rather than the types of memory, that determine the neural substrates that are implicated. Less is known, however, about the factors that determine the rate of forgetting for items and associations (e.g., Wixted 1990;Hockley and Consoli 1999;Sadeh et al. 2014). In ...

show abstract

Section: Distinction Between Item and Associative Memoriesmentioning

confidence: 79%

Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along these lines, Ozubko et al (2012) showed that the advantage of reading aloud over reading silently occurred for words for which participants had a recollective experience or for words that were simply deemed to be familiar (regarding recollection, see also Gregg & Gardiner, 1991). The finding of a reliable production effect in recall (Conway & Gathercole, 1987, Exp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3;Lin & MacLeod, in press) also fits with this observation. As well, Ozubko et al (2012) and Conway and Gathercole (1987) found that participants were more likely to make correct than to make incorrect modality judgments for words that they read aloud than for words that they read silently. Just as individuals can draw upon retrieval of "I said that aloud" to help recognize a previously studied word, so, too, can they make use of retrieving "I mouthed that," "I wrote that," and so on.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In explaining the production effect, MacLeod and colleagues (2010;MacLeod, 2011;Ozubko, Gopie & MacLeod, 2012; have posited a distinctiveness account (inspired by the relational-distinctiveness account of Conway & Gathercole, 1987). Relative to silent reading, reading a word aloud involves the encoding of an additional dimension that stands out as distinctspeech.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Widening the boundaries of the production effect

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Words that are read aloud are more memorable than words that are read silently. The boundaries of this production effect (MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary, & Ozubko, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 671-685, 2010) have been found to extend beyond speech. MacLeod and colleagues demonstrated that mouthing also facilitates memory, leading them to speculate that any distinct, item-specific response should result in a production effect. In Experiment 1, we found support for this conjecture: Relative to silent reading, three unique productions-spelling, writing, and typingall boosted explicit memory. In Experiment 2, we tested the sensitivity of the production effect. Although mouthing, writing, and whispering all improved explicit memory when compared to silent reading, these other production modalities were not as beneficial as speech. We argue that the enhanced distinctiveness of speech relative to other productions-and of other productions relative to silent readingunderlies this pattern of results.

show abstract

“…Simply put, the production effect is the better memory observed for items read aloud than for items read silently. In a series of experiments, MacLeod et al showed this to be a large and robust benefit (see also Hourihan & MacLeod, 2008;Ozubko, Gopie, & MacLeod, 2011;. They argued that the mechanism underlying the effect is distinctiveness, with items produced during study having the distinctive additional element in their encoding of having been spoken aloud.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

I said, you said: The production effect gets personal

MacLeod

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saying a word out loud makes it more memorable than simply reading it silently. This robust finding has been labeled the production effect and has been attributed to the enhanced distinctiveness of produced relative to unproduced items (MacLeod et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 671-685, 2010). Produced items have the additional information that they were spoken aloud encoded in their representations, and this information is useful during retrieval in certifying prior encoding. The present study explored whether production must be self-performed to be beneficial, or whether another person's production also makes an item more memorable. In two experiments, the production effect was shown to be reliable when production was done by someone other than the rememberer (i.e., by the experimenter or by another participant), but substantially smaller than the benefit from self-performed production. Intriguingly, the effect was intermediate when production was done by both the rememberer and another person. Distinctiveness-and hence the production effect -is greatest to the extent that it is personal.

show abstract

Production benefits both recollection and familiarity

Cited by 67 publications

References 55 publications

Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories

Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories

Widening the boundaries of the production effect

I said, you said: The production effect gets personal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About