2020
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00515
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effects of Language and Semantic Repetition on the Enactment Effect of Action Memory

Abstract: Humans exhibit enhanced memory performance when information is encoded by physically enacting it, as opposed to passively reading or hearing the same information; an effect referred to as "enactment effect." The present study explored the effects of language (native vs. non-native) and semantic repetition (repeated vs. non-repeated) on the enactment effect in action memory. Forty-eight subjects learned action phrases either by enacting or by reading the items. Results showed (i) better memory for enacted phras… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, compared with verbal encoding, the motor encoding of old phrases elicited a larger N400 component, and the recognition accuracy rate was higher. The enactment effect was verified again (see also Heil et al, 1999; Yu et al, 2020; Zhang & Zuber, 2020), and the disadvantage of lacking baseline conditions for verbal encoding in previous studies (e.g., van Elk et al, 2008) was also compensated. However, due to the limitation of the ERP technique, the larger activation of N400 after motor encoding observed in the study of van Elk et al (2008) might have arisen from the difference in memory encoding or the addition of new phrases at memory retrieval because the new and unfamiliar stimuli can also significantly activate N400 (Balconi & Amenta, 2010; Mandler, 1980).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…First, compared with verbal encoding, the motor encoding of old phrases elicited a larger N400 component, and the recognition accuracy rate was higher. The enactment effect was verified again (see also Heil et al, 1999; Yu et al, 2020; Zhang & Zuber, 2020), and the disadvantage of lacking baseline conditions for verbal encoding in previous studies (e.g., van Elk et al, 2008) was also compensated. However, due to the limitation of the ERP technique, the larger activation of N400 after motor encoding observed in the study of van Elk et al (2008) might have arisen from the difference in memory encoding or the addition of new phrases at memory retrieval because the new and unfamiliar stimuli can also significantly activate N400 (Balconi & Amenta, 2010; Mandler, 1980).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…On one hand, high item specificity (Kormi-Nouri & Nilsson, 2001; Zhang & Zuber, 2020) and high goal orientation (Yu et al, 2020; Zimmer, 2001) of motor encoding continued into the retrieval stage. For participants, the enactment instruction directs semantic processing to action-specific information.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Subjects are asked at random to complete an SPT by performing simple tasks (such as breaking a pencil or opening a book) or to complete a verbal task (VT) by reading or listening to a description of the same task without enactment ( Cohen, 1981 ; Leynes, and Kakadia, 2013). The memory performance is superior in SPT or motor encoding compared with VT or verbal encoding, and it is known as the enactment effect ( Nilsson, 2000 ; Peterson and Mulligan, 2010 ; Zhang and Zuber, 2020 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%