The relationship between recognition and cued recall in memory of enacted and nonenacted information

SummaryAn experiment was conducted to determine whether the processes underlying memory for enacted and nonenacted events are the same or different. The experimental paradigm used was that of recognition failure of recallable information. At study subjects were given verbal commands (e.g., break the match, roll the ball), that they were to remember or enact and remember. At test subjects were first asked to recognize the noun in each command in the absence of the verb and then to recall the noun with the verb present as cue. Half the subjects were given the two tests in the reverse order. The results demonstrate that enactment and nonenactment differ with respect to the degree of dependence/independence between recognition and recall. In the enactment condition recognition and cued recall are completely independent and in the nonenactment condition they are almost completely dependent.

[1]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words , 1975 .

[2]  E. Tulving,et al.  Recognition failure of categorized words , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[3]  John R. Anderson,et al.  RECOGNITION AND RETRIEVAL PROCESSES IN FREE RECALL , 1972 .

[4]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  Aging effects in free recall: An exception to the rule. , 1984 .

[5]  B. Murdock.  Human memory: Theory and data. , 1975 .

[6]  Suzanne Donnenwerth-Nolan,et al.  Does motoric imagery facilitate memory for sentences? A selective interference test , 1981 .

[7]  F. Craik,et al.  Additive and interactive effects in memory for subject-performed tasks , 1990 .

[8]  J. C. Rabinowitz.  Aging and recognition failure. , 1984, Journal of gerontology.

[9]  A. J. Flexser.  Homogenizing the 2 × 2 contingency table: A method for removing dependencies due to subject and item differences. , 1981 .

[10]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Episodic memory: When recognition fails. , 1975 .

[11]  L. Nilsson,et al.  A Functional View of Memory , 1980 .

[12]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[13]  E. Tulving.  Elements of episodic memory , 1983 .

[14]  A. J. Flexser,et al.  Retrieval independence in recognition and recall. , 1978 .

[15]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  Recognition Failure of Recallable Unique Names: Evidence For an Empirical Law of Memory and Learning , 1988 .

[16]  R. L. Cohen,et al.  Memory in educable mentally retarded adults: deficit in subject or experimenter? , 1983 .

[17]  R. L. Cohen,et al.  On the generality of some memory laws , 1981 .

[18]  D. G. Payne,et al.  A direct comparison of recognition failure rates for recallable names in episodic and semanticmemory tests , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[19]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[20]  L. P. Shaps,et al.  Encoding and retrieval operations in relation to age. , 1980 .

[21]  E. Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity: Relation between recall superiority and recognition failure. , 1976 .

[22]  John M. Gardiner,et al.  An appreciation of generate-recognize theory of recall , 1979 .

[23]  Johannes Engelkamp,et al.  Image- and motor-processes in the retention of verbal materials. , 1980 .

[24]  R. L. Cohen,et al.  How to avoid developmental effects in free recall , 1982 .

[25]  L. Backman.  Further evidence for the lack of adult age differences on free recall of subject-performed tasks: The importance of motor action. , 1985 .

[26]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  Implicit memory and the enactment of verbal instructions , 1989 .

[27]  L. Bäckman,et al.  Prerequisites for lack of age differences in memory performance. , 1985, Experimental aging research.

[28]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  A reconstructive-processing interpretation of the recognition failure phenomenon ☆ , 1981 .

[29]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Implicit Memory: Theoretical Issues , 1989 .