2007
DOI: 10.3758/bf03193442
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Source-monitoring judgments about anagrams and their solutions: Evidence for the role of cognitive operations information in memory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
1
15
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Likewise, very few experiments have been directed at retrieval of neural reactivation of strategies implemented during learning, and these have focused almost exclusively on verbal versus visual encoding strategies (reviewed in Danker & Anderson, 2010; for demonstration of effects of cognitive reactivation, see Foley & Foley, 2007). For example, comparisons between reactivation of words studied with a verbal rehearsal strategy versus a visual mental-imagery strategy have yielded corresponding reactivation effects in brain regions associated with linguistics versus mental imagery (Johnson & Rugg, 2007; see also Kahn, Davachi, & Wagner, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Likewise, very few experiments have been directed at retrieval of neural reactivation of strategies implemented during learning, and these have focused almost exclusively on verbal versus visual encoding strategies (reviewed in Danker & Anderson, 2010; for demonstration of effects of cognitive reactivation, see Foley & Foley, 2007). For example, comparisons between reactivation of words studied with a verbal rehearsal strategy versus a visual mental-imagery strategy have yielded corresponding reactivation effects in brain regions associated with linguistics versus mental imagery (Johnson & Rugg, 2007; see also Kahn, Davachi, & Wagner, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used anagram‐solving task (the anagram task) to manipulate cognitive effort (Foley & Foley, 2007; Foley, Foley, Durley, & Maitner, 2006; Johnson, Raye, Foley, & Foley, 1981; Sugimori & Tanno, 2008), we selected this task to serve as the one requiring greater cognitive effort, and we selected the word‐observing task (the word task) as the one requiring less cognitive effort. The word task versus the anagram task was a between‐subjects factor.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…El motivo de esta decisión experimental fue que los anagramas por letras son posiblemente más difíciles de identificar que los anagramas por sílabas, tal dificultad podría perjudicar la captación experimental de la interferencia stroop intermodal buscada. En lugar de generar el fenómeno stroop, se podría generar un fenómeno de resolución de problemas (Foley & Foley, 2007). De este modo, al utilizar anagramas más accesibles (Foley & Foley, 2007) se contribuyó a disminuir el tiempo de reacción en comparación con el procesamiento de las palabras.…”
Section: Tabla 4 Comparación De Las Variables Dependientes Entre El Gunclassified
“…En lugar de generar el fenómeno stroop, se podría generar un fenómeno de resolución de problemas (Foley & Foley, 2007). De este modo, al utilizar anagramas más accesibles (Foley & Foley, 2007) se contribuyó a disminuir el tiempo de reacción en comparación con el procesamiento de las palabras.…”
Section: Tabla 4 Comparación De Las Variables Dependientes Entre El Gunclassified