Pronunciation effects in recognition memory

Hopkins, Ronald H.; Edwards, Richard E.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80036-7

Cited by 104 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the results of Experiment 2 were even fit using a dual-process model, despite the fact that a single-process model could have been adopted. Although we have previously cited evidence that is inconsistent with a single-process strength interpretation of the production effect (Hopkins & Edwards, 1972;MacDonald & MacLeod, 1998;MacLeod et al, 2010;, it remains a possibility that a single-process account could have been used to explain the data reported in this article. Specifically, if it is assumed that "remember" and "know" responses do not reflect a qualitative difference in memory (in line with singleprocess accounts), then they must represent a quantitative difference along a single dimension of memory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…First, it is now clear that the production effect is limited to within-subjects, mixed-list designs (Hopkins & Edwards, 1972;MacLeod et al, 2010; but see Dodson & Schacter, 2001, for a "production effect" in false alarm rates that occurs between subjects). Because distinctiveness is necessarily relative (see Hunt, 2006), only in within-subjects designs can distinctiveness express itself strongly.…”

Section: The Qualitative Effect Of Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Production benefits both recollection and familiarity

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avis par courriel de la disponibilité des revues de la SCP en ligne!Vous voulez savoir quand sera accessible en ligne le prochain numéro de votre revue de la Sociétè canadienne de psychologie préférée? Il est désormais possible de le faire. Inscrivez-vous a `http://notify.apa.org/ et vous serez avisé par courriel de la date de parution en ligne des numéros qui vous intéressent! 98 BODNER, JAMIESON, CORMACK, MCDONALD, AND BERNSTEIN

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: The Qualitative Effect Of Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production benefits both recollection and familiarity

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other evidence, such as work on the production effect (Conway & Gathercole, 1987;Hopkins & Edwards, 1972;MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary & Ozubko, 2010), has shown that saying a word aloud can enhance retention as compared to reading a word silently. MacLeod et al suggested that producing (speaking) words creates a distinct verbal record that subjects can use to facilitate future recognition.…”

Section: Response Mode and Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect?

Putnam

Roediger

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The testing effect is the finding that retrieval practice can enhance recall on future tests. One unanswered question is whether first-test response mode (writing or speaking the answer) affects final-test performance (and whether finaltest response mode itself matters). An additional unsettled issue is whether written and oral recall lead to differences in the amount recalled. In three experiments, we examined these issues: whether subjects can recall more via typing or speaking; whether typing or speaking answers on a first test can lead to better final-test performance (and whether an interaction occurs with final-test response mode) and whether any form of overt response leads to better final-test performance as compared to covert retrieval (thinking of the answer but not producing it). Subjects studied paired associates; took a first test by typing, speaking, or thinking about responses; and then took a second test in which the answers were either spoken or typed. The results revealed few differences between typing and speaking during recall, and no difference in the size of the testing effect on the second test. Furthermore, an initial covert retrieval yielded roughly the same benefit to future test performance as did overt retrieval. Thus, the testing effect was quite robust across these manipulations. The practical implication for learning is that covert retrieval provides as much benefit to later retention as does overt retrieval and that both can be effective study strategies.Keywords Testing effect . Response mode . Retrieval practice Thousands of memory experiments have been conducted using recall as the criterion variable, whether in cued recall, serial recall, or free recall. One factor that varies throughout the literature is response mode-whether subjects write or speak their responses. In the first studies of memory, only spoken responses were used (Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964), but we suspect that the majority of recall studies today use typed or written recall, for ease of scoring.This article addresses two issues of response mode: how it may affect the amount recalled, and how it may affect later retention. Regarding the first-does response mode (speaking or writing) affect the amount recalled?-we can find few researchers who have seriously considered the question. Many studies have contrasted visual and auditory input, but few have investigated written versus spoken response mode. We suspect that most researchers assume that response mode does not matter, and thus use whatever procedure is handy for their purposes. As the bulk of the contemporary literature on long-term retrieval has predominantly used written or typed responding, it is important to address whether response mode can influence recall.The second, and perhaps more interesting, issue is whether response mode on a first test (speaking or typing) affects the benefit of that test on a second test. That is, if subjects study material and are then asked to speak their responses or to type them on a first test, will this difference...

show abstract

“…Although the benefit of vocalization for long-term memory had received periodic research attention (Conway & Gathercole, 1987;Dodson & Schacter, 2001;Gathercole & Conway, 1988;Gregg & Gardiner, 1991;Hopkins & Edwards, 1972;Kurtz & Hovland, 1953;MacDonald & MacLeod, 1998;Rosenbaum, 1962), MacLeod and colleagues have recently brought this phenomenon to the fore. They have reported that "production" is a robust mnemonic that enhances both recognition and recall (Lin & MacLeod, in press; see also Conway & Gathercole, 1987, Exp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Widening the boundaries of the production effect

2012

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

Pronunciation effects in recognition memory

Cited by 104 publications

References 5 publications

Production benefits both recollection and familiarity

Production benefits both recollection and familiarity

Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect?

Widening the boundaries of the production effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About