Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Recent research on cognitive control has focused on the learning consequences of high selective attention demands in selective attention tasks (e.g., Botvinick, Cognit Affect Behav Neurosci 7(4):356–366, 2007; Verguts and Notebaert, Psychol Rev 115(2):518–525, 2008). The current study extends these ideas by examining the influence of selective attention demands on remembering. In Experiment 1, participants read aloud the red word in a pair of red and green spatially interleaved words. Half of the items were congruent (the interleaved words had the same identity), and the other half were incongruent (the interleaved words had different identities). Following the naming phase, participants completed a surprise recognition memory test. In this test phase, recognition memory was better for incongruent than for congruent items. In Experiment 2, context was only partially reinstated at test, and again recognition memory was better for incongruent than for congruent items. In Experiment 3, all of the items contained two different words, but in one condition the words were presented close together and interleaved, while in the other condition the two words were spatially separated. Recognition memory was better for the interleaved than for the separated items. This result rules out an interpretation of the congruency effects on recognition in Experiments 1 and 2 that hinges on stronger relational encoding for items that have two different words. Together, the results support the view that selective attention demands for incongruent items lead to encoding that improves recognition.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18189009.
Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(367), 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367.
Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893001.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. CrossRef
Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13(1), 8–20. CrossRef
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1431740.
Hirshman, E., Trembath, D., & Mulligan, N. (1994). Theoretical implications of the mnemonic benefits of perceptual interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 608–620. CrossRef
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14620358.
Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(2), 126–135. CrossRef
Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2006). Evidence for task-specific resolution of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(5), 800–806. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17328376.
Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., De Belder, M., & Egner, T. (2013). Neural conflict-control mechanisms improve memory for target stimuli. Cerebral Cortex,. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht283.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.
Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby, L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 75–102). London: Wiley.
Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 684–700. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7159848.
Milliken, B., & Joordens, S. (1996). Negative priming without overt prime selection. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(4), 333–346. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9025325.
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 1–64.
Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 21(1), 89–102. CrossRef
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5812172.
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10495845.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. CrossRef
Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(6), 1345–1363. doi: 10.1037//0096-15188.8.131.525. PubMed
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26(1), 1–12. CrossRef
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 727–735. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435275.
Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 622–643. CrossRef
- Selective attention and recognition: effects of congruency on episodic learning
Tamara M. Rosner
Maria C. D’Angelo
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg