Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2009 | Original Article

The effects of dividing attention on the encoding and performance of novel naturalistic actions

Auteurs: David A. Gold, Norman W. Park

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2009

Abstract

Novel naturalistic actions (NNAs) are multi-step, goal-directed actions involving the manipulation of objects that are unfamiliar to a person prior to instruction. Experiment 1 investigated the cognitive processes involved with encoding and performing NNAs by selectively interfering with attention during viewing or production of a NNA using the dual-task paradigm (n = 27, healthy adults). Consistent with the central findings from the dual-task memory literature, dividing attention at viewing caused a relatively greater disruptive effect on NNA performance than selectively interfering with attention during enactment. A follow-up experiment (n = 24, healthy adults) increased difficulty of memory retrieval by having participants verbally describe previously viewed NNAs while concurrently performing a secondary task, and it revealed no significant differences between the effects of dividing attention on the verbal description and physical construction of NNAs. The implications of our findings for the processes mediating encoding and enactment of naturalistic actions were presented. As well, the utility of a dynamic technique of inducing error types normally found in neurologically impaired populations was discussed.

vorige artikel When similarity leads to sparing: probing mechanisms underlying the attentional blink

volgende artikel Perceptual and attentional factors in encoding irrelevant spatial information

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Fleiss and Cohen (1973) have demonstrated mathematically that the ICC is equivalent to weighted Kappa, and recommend its use in analyses with several nominal variables to be judged that behave more like ordinal variables. Conventionally, an ICC of 0.70 is considered acceptable inter-rater reliability in psychological research (more detailed guidelines dictated that 0.40–0.59 represents moderate inter-rater reliability, 0.60–0.79 substantial, and 0.80 outstanding; see Landis & Koch, 1977).

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., & Thomson, N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518–540.CrossRef

Bekkering, H., Brass, M., Woschina, S., & Jacobs, A. M. (2005). Goal-directed imitation in patients with ideomotor apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 419–432.CrossRef

Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review, 111, 395–429.PubMedCrossRef

Butterworth, G. (1990). On reconceptualizing sensori-motor coordination in dynamic system terms. In H. Bloch, & B. I. Bertenthal (Eds.), Sensory motor organization and development in infancy and early childhood (pp. 57–73). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Buxbaum, L. J., Kyle, K. M., & Menon, R. (2005). On beyond mirror neurons: Internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled objects-related actions in humans. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 226–239.PubMedCrossRef

Buxbaum, L. J., Schwartz, M. F., & Montgomery, M. W. (1998). Ideational apraxia and naturalistic action. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 617–643.CrossRef

Cooper, R. P., Schwartz, M. F., Yule, P., & Shallice, T. (2005). The simulation of action disorganization in complex activities of daily living. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 959–1004.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Craik, F. I. M, Naveh-Benjamin, M., Ishaik, G., & Anderson, N. D. (2000). Divided attention during encoding and retrieval: Differential control effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1744–1749.PubMedCrossRef

Creem, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2001). Grasping objects by their handles: A necessary interaction between cognition and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 218–228.PubMedCrossRef

Decety, J., Grezes, J., Costes, N., Perani, D., Jeannerod, M., Procyk, E., et al. (1997). Brain activity during observation of actions: Influence of action content and subject’s strategy. Brain, 120, 1763–1777.PubMedCrossRef

De Renzi, E., & Lucchelli, F. (1988). Ideational apraxia. Brain, 111, 1173–1185.PubMedCrossRef

Dobbs, A. R., & Rule, B. G. (1989). Adult age differences in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 4, 500–503.PubMedCrossRef

Engelkamp, J. (1998). Memory for actions. Hove: Psychology Press.

Fernandes, M. A., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 155–176.CrossRef

Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613–619.CrossRef

Giovannetti, T., Libon, D. J., Buxbaum, L. J., & Schwartz, M. F. (2002). Naturalistic action impairments in dementia. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1220–1232.PubMedCrossRef

Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C.-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 236–243.PubMedCrossRef

Hartmann, K., Goldenberg, G., Daumuller, M., & Hermsdorfer, J. (2005). It takes the whole brain to make a cup of coffee: The neuropsychology of naturalistic actions involving technical devices. Neuropsychologia, 43, 625–637.PubMedCrossRef

Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E. (1998). Disordered action schema and action disorganisation syndrome. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 771–811.

Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human interaction. Science, 286, 2526–2528.PubMedCrossRef

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.PubMedCrossRef

Lindemann, O., Stenneken, P., van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Semantic activation in action planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 633–643.PubMedCrossRef

Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. London: Tavistock.

Moscovitch, M. (1992). Memory and working with memory: A component process model based on modules and central systems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 257–267.CrossRef

Moscovitch, M. (1994). Interference at retrieval from long-term memory: The influences of frontal and temporal lobes. Neuropsychology, 4, 525–534.

Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., & Dori, H. (1998). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: Further support for an asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1091–1104.PubMedCrossRef

Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., & Kreuger, S. (2005). Divided attention in younger and older adults: Effects of strategy and relatedness on memory performance and secondary task costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 520–537.PubMedCrossRef

Naveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A., & Fisher, T. (2006). Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry. Memory and Cognition, 34, 90–101.

Newtson, D. (1973). Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 28–38.CrossRef

Nyberg, L., Petersson, K. M., Nilsson, L-G., Sandblom, J., Aberg, C., & Ingvar, M. (2001). Reactivation of motor brain area during explicit memory for actions. Neuroimage, 14, 521–528.PubMedCrossRef

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.CrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141.CrossRef

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. E. (2003). Concurrent task effects on memory retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 96–103.

Rumiati, R. I., & Bekkering, H. (2003). To imitate or not to imitate: How the brain can do it, that is the question. Brain and Cognition, 53, 479–482.PubMedCrossRef

Rumiati, R. I., & Tessari, A. (2002). Imitation of novel and well-known actions. Experimental Brain Research, 142, 425–433.CrossRef

Rusted, J., & Sheppard, L. (2002). Action-based memory in Alzheimer’s Disease: A longitudinal look at tea making. Neurocase, 8, 111–126.PubMed

Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (1994). What are the memory systems of 1994? In: D. L. Schacter, & E. Tulving (Eds.), Memory systems 1994 (pp. 1–35). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotta, A. (2002). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.

Schwartz, M. F. (2006). The cognitive neuropsychology of everyday action and planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 202–221.CrossRef

Schwartz, M. F., Buxbaum, L. J., Montgomery, M. W., Fitzpatrick-DeSalme, E., Hart, T., Ferraro, M., et al. (1999). Naturalistic action production following right hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychologia, 37, 51–56.PubMedCrossRef

Schwartz, M. F., Montgomery, M. W., Buxbaum, L. J., Less, S. S., Carew, T. G., Coslett, H. B., et al. (1998). Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury. Neuropsychologia, 12, 13–28.CrossRef

Schwartz, M. F., Reed, E. S., Montgomery, M. W., Palmer, C., & Mayer, N. H. (1991). The qualitative description of action disorganization after brain damage: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 381–414.CrossRef

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.PubMedCrossRef

Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science, 283, 1657–1661.PubMedCrossRef

Troyer, A. K., & Craik, F. I. M. (2000). The effect of divided attention on memory for items and their context. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 161–170.PubMed

Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 29–58.CrossRef

Zalla, T., Plassiart, C., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., & Sirigu, A. (2001). Action planning in a virtual context after prefrontal cortex damage. Neuropsychologia, 39, 759–770.PubMedCrossRef

Zalla, T., Pradat-Diehl, P., & Sirigu, A. (2003). Perception of action boundaries in patients with frontal lobe damage. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1619–27.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The effects of dividing attention on the encoding and performance of novel naturalistic actions
Auteurs: David A. Gold
Norman W. Park
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2009
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0148-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2009

The microgenesis of action-effect binding

Investigating the role of conflict resolution in memory updating by means of the one-back choice RT task

Matching of visual input to only one item at any one time

Perceptual and attentional factors in encoding irrelevant spatial information

Emotional Stroop task: effect of word arousal and subject anxiety on emotional interference

Dissociating speed and accuracy in absolute identification: the effect of unequal stimulus spacing