Search

The production effect refers to the finding that words read aloud are better remembered than those read silently. This pattern has most often been explained as arising from the incorporation of sensorimotor elements into the item representation at study, which could then be used to guide performance at later test. This theoretical framework views aloud items as being distinctive in relation to silent items, and thus the effect was thought to emerge only when production was manipulated within-subjects. This claim was later challenged, and a reliable (albeit smaller) between-subject production effect has since been shown in recognition memory. Across a series of meta-analyses, we extend this earlier work, replicating the between-subject production effect for recognition, and demonstrating no such effect for overall target recall. However, supporting recent theoretical claims, we further observed an interaction between the production effect and serial position within recall, such that a production effect was observed for late time points but not early time points (a similar, albeit smaller and noncredible trend was observed for recognition). Finally, we provide evidence that production reduces off-list intrusions. In summary, production has a reliable impact on recognition memory when manipulated between-subjects, but a more complex relationship with recall performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Words read aloud are later recalled and recognized better than words read silently: the production effect. Previous research (Fawcett, Quinlan, & Taylor, 2012) has demonstrated a production effect in old/new recognition of line drawings. The current study examined whether production at encoding can improve memory for the visual details of a picture, or whether it is primarily memory for the picture's verbal label that benefits from production. Participants studied a list of photographs of nameable objects by naming half of the objects aloud and half silently. In Experiment 1, a control group completed a free recall test for the object names while the experimental group completed a 4-alternative forced-choice recognition test for the studied pictures and provided confidence judgments in their recognition decisions. Both groups showed a significant production effect. Experiment 2 obtained image typicality ratings and naming data for use in Experiment 3. In Experiment 3, studied items were tested after a 1-week delay in one of three different types of 2-alternative forced-choice recognition test: versus a different picture exemplar of the same item; versus a different picture; or as a verbal label versus a different verbal label. Results showed a significant production effect in all testing conditions, with the magnitude of the effect similar across conditions. Production improves memory for both the visual details and verbal label of pictures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present study was to determine the extent to which doodling, which we define as drawing that is semantically unrelated to to-be-remembered information, enhances memory performance. In Experiment 1, participants heard auditorily presented lists of categorized words. They were asked to either doodle, draw a picture of, or write out, each item while listening to the target words. Participants showed poorer free recall for words encoded while free-form doodling compared to words that were drawn or written, with drawing resulting in the best performance. In Experiment 2, target words were embedded in a narrative story to better resemble a real-world situation in which one might doodle. Participants monitored each auditorily presented narrative while either free-form doodling, drawing, or writing in response to the target words. As in Experiment 1, doodling led to the poorest subsequent recall for targets compared to drawing or writing during encoding. In Experiment 3, we used a structured doodling task at encoding, such that participants shaded in geometric shapes printed on paper rather than create their own doodles. Structured doodling led to similar levels of recall compared to simply writing. Creating a drawing of the words at encoding, rather than doodling, once again enhanced recall significantly. Taken together, these findings indicate that unlike task-relevant drawing, structured doodling during study provides no benefits to free recall, and free-form doodling leads to memory costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The production effect reflects a memory advantage for words read aloud versus silently. We investigated how production influences free recall of a single long list of words. In each of 4 experiments, a production effect occurred in a mixed-list group but not across pure-list groups. When compared to the pure-list groups, the mixed-list effects typically reflected a cost to silent words rather than a benefit to aloud words. This cost persisted when participants had to perform a generation or imagery task for the silent items, ruling out a lazy reading explanation. This recall pattern challenges both distinctiveness and strength accounts, but is consistent with an item-order account. By this account, the aloud words in a mixed list disrupt the encoding of item-order information for the silent words, thus impairing silent word recall. However, item-order measures and a forced-choice order test did not provide much evidence that recall was guided by retrieval of item-order information. We discuss our pattern of results in light of another recent study of the effects of production on long-list recall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences in memory for item order have been used to explain the absence of between-subjects (i.e., pure-list) effects in free recall for several encoding techniques, including the production effect, the finding that reading aloud benefits memory compared with reading silently. Notably, however, evidence in support of the item-order account (Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991) has derived primarily from short-list paradigms. We provide novel evidence that the item-order account also applies when recalling long lists. In Experiment 1, participants studied and then free recalled 3 different long lists of words: pure aloud, pure silent, and mixed (half aloud, half silent). A Bayesian analysis supported a null pure-list production effect, and subsequent order analyses were largely consistent with the item-order account. These findings indicate that order information is retained in long-term memory and is useful in guiding subsequent free recall. In Experiment 2, a distractor task was inserted between the study and test phases, ensuring that only long-term memory processes were involved in recall: The pattern of results remained consistent with the item-order account. Order information can be retained in long-term memory for long lists, and is useful in guiding subsequent free recall, extending the domain of the item-order account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The production effect refers to enhanced memory for materials that were produced at study (e.g., those read aloud) relative to materials that were not produced (e.g., those read silently). The effect has generated a wave of interest since being named in 2010 (MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary, and Ozubko, 2010)--likely because of the simplicity of production tasks and of the substantial memory improvements that they can yield. This special issue of the Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology brings together 10 new studies on the production effect in memory. Our introduction provides an expanded definition of the effect along with some examples to help orient readers. The present studies contribute to our understanding of the production effect and to memory more broadly. Just as important, they also raise new questions and provide a honed set of methodological tools that will help to guide further research and theorizing about memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a holographic theory of human memory. According to the theory, a subject's vocabulary resides in a dynamic distributed representation—a hologram. Studying or recalling a word alters both the existing representation of that word in the hologram and all words associated with it. Recall is always prompted by a recall cue (either a start instruction or the word just recalled). Order of report is a joint function of the item and associative information residing in the hologram at the time the report is made. We apply the model to archival data involving simple free recall, learning in multitrial free recall, simple serial recall, and learning in multitrial serial recall. The model captures accuracy and order of report in both free and serial recall. It also captures learning and subjective organisation in multitrial free recall. We offer the model as an alternative to the short- and long-term account of memory postulated in the modal model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]