Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 1263–1277 | Cite as

Effects of divided attention at encoding and retrieval: Further data

  • Fergus I. M. Craik
  • Eldar Eftekhari
  • Malcolm A. Binns
Article
  • 176 Downloads

Abstract

Division of attention (DA) at the time of learning has large detrimental effects on subsequent memory performance, but DA at retrieval has much smaller effects (Baddeley, Lewis, Eldridge, & Thomson, 1984, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518–540; Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180). Experiment 1 confirmed the relatively small effects of DA on retrieval and also showed that retrieval operations do consume processing resources. The experiment also found that the effect is not attributable to a trade-off in performance with the concurrent task or to recognition decisions made on the basis of familiarity judgments. Participants made levels-of-processing (LOP) judgments during encoding to check whether deeper semantic judgments were differentially vulnerable to the effects of DA. In fact DA did not interact with LOP. Experiment 2 explored reports that the comparatively slight effect of DA on recognition accuracy is accompanied by a compensatory increase in recognition latency (Baddeley et al., 1984). The experiment replicated findings that neither DA nor differential emphasis between recognition and a concurrent continuous reaction time (CRT) task affected recognition accuracy, but also found evidence for a lawful trade-off in decision latencies between recognition and CRT performance. Further analysis showed that the relationship between response rates on the two tasks was well described by a linear function, and that this function was demonstrated by the majority of individual participants. It is concluded that the small effect of DA on recognition performance is attributable to a trade-off within the recognition task itself; accuracy is maintained by a compensatory increase in decision latency.

Keywords

Divided attention Encoding Retrieval Response latency Response rate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a research grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to Fergus Craik (A8261). Correspondence concerning the article should be addressed to Fergus Craik, Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest, 3560 Bathurst St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6A 2E1. Email: fcraik@research.baycrest.org

References

  1. Baddeley, A., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., & Thomson, N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518–540. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, A. L., Rotello, C. M., & MacMillan, N. A. (2008). Evaluating models of remember-know judgments: Complexity, mimicry, and discriminability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 906–926. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.906 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craik, F. I. M. (1982). Selective changes in encoding as a function of reduced processing capacity. In F. Klix, J. Hoffmann, & E. Van der Meer (Eds.), Cognitive research in psychology (pp. 152–161). Berlin, Germany: DVW.Google Scholar
  4. Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.125.2.159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craik, F. I. M., & McDowd, J. M. (1987). Age differences in recall and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 474–479.Google Scholar
  6. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dodson, C. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1996). Some problems with the process-dissociation approach to memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 181–194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective experience. Memory & Cognition, 16, 309–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardiner, J. M., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2000). Remembering and knowing. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 229–244). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gruppuso, V., Lindsay, D. S., & Kelley, C. M. (1997). The process-dissociation procedure and similarity: Defining and estimating recollection and familiarity in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 259–278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guez, J., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2006). Divided attention at encoding and retrieval for once- and thrice-presented items: A micro-level analysis of attentional costs. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 874–898. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500485854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2000). Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1483–1498. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingram, K. M., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Recollection can be weak and familiarity can be strong. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 38, 325–339. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(91)90025-f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 306–340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacoby L. L. (1998) Invariance in automatic influences of memory: Toward a user's guide for the process-dissociation procedure.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24 (1):3–26Google Scholar
  17. Jacoby, L. L., & Hay, J. F. (1998). Age-related deficits in memory: Theory and application. In M. A. Conway, S. E. Gathercole, & C. Cornoldi (Eds.), Theories of memory (Vol. 2, pp. 111–134). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989a). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326–338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989b). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 391–422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (2000). Recollection and familiarity: Process-dissociation. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 306–340). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kellogg, R. T., Cocklin, T., & Bourne, L. E. (1982). Conscious attentional demands of encoding and retrieval from long-term memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 95, 183–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1422465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lozito, J. P., & Mulligan, N. W. (2006). Exploring the role of attention during memory retrieval: Effects of semantic encoding and divided attention. Memory & Cognition, 34, 986–998. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252-271. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulligan, N. W. (1998). The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 27–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.1.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mulligan, N. W., & Hirshman, E. (1997). Measuring the bases of recognition memory: An investigation of the process-dissociation framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 280–304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1965). Effects of a subsidiary task on short-term memory. British Journal of Psychology, 56, 413–419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1965.tb00983.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. E. (2003). Concurrent task effects on memory retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 96–103.Google Scholar
  29. Shaw, R. J., & Craik, F. I. M. (1989). Age differences in predictions and performance on a cued recall task. Psychology and Aging, 4, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2010). A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments. Psychological Review, 117, 1025–1054. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fergus I. M. Craik
    • 1
  • Eldar Eftekhari
    • 1
  • Malcolm A. Binns
    • 1
  1. 1.Rotman Research Institute at BaycrestTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations