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]

The production effect refers to the finding that items read aloud are better remembered than items read silently. This is often explained with reference to distinctiveness, arguing that aloud items become associated with distinctive sensorimotor features that facilitate retrieval at test. Based on this framework, more distinctive forms of production should result in larger production effects. The present study tested this theory by having participants study items silently or aloud in either their own voice or as a popular character. Participants were then tested for those items using recognition memory. Relative to silent items, aloud items read in the participants' own voice demonstrated a typical production effect; however, contrary to any predictions, no production effect was observed for the character voices. We next manipulated how frequently the character voice was used relative to the participants' own voice. This revealed a production effect for character voices only when those voices were more common than the participant's own voice. This pattern could not be attributed to cognitive demands or performance anxiety but was predicted by a novel computational account based on the Retrieving Effectively from Memory (REM) model. Our results show that the relation between distinctiveness and memory is not necessarily linear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five experiments explored the basis of the between-subjects production effect in recognition memory as represented by differences in the recollection and familiarity of produced (read aloud) and nonproduced (read silently) words. Using remember-know judgments (Experiment 1b) and a dual-process signaldetection approach applied to confidence ratings (Experiments 2b and 3), we observed that production influences familiarity but not recollection when manipulated between-subjects. This is in contrast to within-subject designs, which reveal a clear effect of production on both recollection and familiarity (Experiments 1a and 2a). Our findings resolve contention concerning apparent design effects: Whereas the within-subject production effect is subserved by separable recollective- and familiarity-based components, the between-subjects production effect is subserved by the familiarity-based component alone. Our findings support a role for the relative distinctiveness of production as a means of guiding recognition judgments (at least when manipulated within-subjects), but we also propose that production influences the strength of produced items, explaining the persistence of the effect in between-subjects designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Producing (e.g., saying, mouthing) some items and silently reading others has been shown to result in a reliable advantage favoring retention of the produced compared to non-produced items at test. However, evidence has been mixed as to whether the benefits of production are limited to within- as opposed to between-subject designs. It has even been suggested that the within-subjects nature of the production effect may be one of its defining characteristics. Meta-analytic techniques were applied to evaluate this claim. Findings indicated a moderate effect of production on recognition memory when varied between-subjects (g=0.37). This outcome suggests that the production effect is not defined as an exclusively within-subject occurrence. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Three experiments explored the interaction between the production effect (greater memory for produced compared to non-produced study items) and the picture superiority effect (greater memory for pictures compared to words). Pictures and words were presented in a blocked (E1) or mixed (E2, E3) design, each accompanied by an instruction to silently name (non-produced condition) or quietly mouth (produced condition) the corresponding referent. Memory was then tested for all study items as well as an equal number of foil items using a speeded (E1, E2) or self-paced (E3) yes-no recognition task. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 all revealed a small but reliable production×stimulus interaction. Production was also found to result in a liberal shift in response bias that could result in the overestimation of the production effect when measured using hits instead of sensitivity. Together our findings suggest that the application of multiple distinctive processes at study produces an especially discriminative memory trace at test, more so than the summation of each process individually. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]