使用混合列表和纯列表设计,将制作和绘图作为编码技术对回忆的有效性。

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Sophia H N Tran, Myra A Fernandes
{"title":"使用混合列表和纯列表设计,将制作和绘图作为编码技术对回忆的有效性。","authors":"Sophia H N Tran, Myra A Fernandes","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2399116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We compared the benefit of production and drawing on recall of concrete and abstract words, using mixed- and pure-list designs. We varied stimulus and list types to examine whether the memory benefit from these strategies was sustained across these manipulations. For all experiments, the memory retrieval task was free recall. In Experiment 1, participants studied concrete and abstract words sequentially, with prompts to either silently-read, read aloud, write, or draw each target (intermixed). Reading aloud, writing, and drawing improved recall compared to silent reading, with drawing leading to the largest boost. Performance, however, was at floor in all but the drawing condition. In Experiment 2, the number of targets was reduced, and each strategy (between-subjects) was compared to silent-reading. We eliminated floor effects and replicated results from Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we manipulated strategy in a pure-list-design. The drawing benefit was maintained while that from production was eliminated. In all experiments, recall was higher for concrete than abstract words that were drawn; no such effect was found for words produced. Results suggest that drawing facilitates memory by enhancing semantic elaboration, whereas the production benefit is largely perceptually based. Importantly, the memory benefit conferred by drawing at encoding, unlike production, cannot be explained by a distinctiveness account as it was relatively unaffected by study design.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of production and drawing as encoding techniques on recall using mixed- and pure-list designs.\",\"authors\":\"Sophia H N Tran, Myra A Fernandes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09658211.2024.2399116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We compared the benefit of production and drawing on recall of concrete and abstract words, using mixed- and pure-list designs. We varied stimulus and list types to examine whether the memory benefit from these strategies was sustained across these manipulations. For all experiments, the memory retrieval task was free recall. In Experiment 1, participants studied concrete and abstract words sequentially, with prompts to either silently-read, read aloud, write, or draw each target (intermixed). Reading aloud, writing, and drawing improved recall compared to silent reading, with drawing leading to the largest boost. Performance, however, was at floor in all but the drawing condition. In Experiment 2, the number of targets was reduced, and each strategy (between-subjects) was compared to silent-reading. We eliminated floor effects and replicated results from Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we manipulated strategy in a pure-list-design. The drawing benefit was maintained while that from production was eliminated. In all experiments, recall was higher for concrete than abstract words that were drawn; no such effect was found for words produced. Results suggest that drawing facilitates memory by enhancing semantic elaboration, whereas the production benefit is largely perceptually based. Importantly, the memory benefit conferred by drawing at encoding, unlike production, cannot be explained by a distinctiveness account as it was relatively unaffected by study design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2399116\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2399116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们采用混合列表和纯列表设计,比较了制作和绘制对具体单词和抽象单词记忆的益处。我们改变了刺激和列表类型,以考察这些策略带来的记忆益处是否在这些操作中持续存在。在所有实验中,记忆检索任务均为自由回忆。在实验 1 中,受试者按顺序学习具体和抽象单词,并根据提示默读、朗读、书写或绘制每个目标(混合进行)。与默读相比,朗读、书写和绘画都能提高回忆能力,其中绘画的提高幅度最大。然而,除绘画外,其他条件下的成绩都处于最低水平。在实验 2 中,我们减少了目标的数量,并将每种策略(被试间)与默读进行了比较。我们消除了底线效应,并复制了实验 1 的结果。在实验 3 中,我们在纯列表设计中对策略进行了操作。我们保留了画图的益处,同时消除了制作的益处。在所有实验中,绘制的具体单词比抽象单词的记忆率更高;而制作的单词则没有这种效应。实验结果表明,绘画通过加强语义的阐述来促进记忆,而制作的益处则主要基于感知。重要的是,与制作不同,绘图在编码时所带来的记忆益处不能用独特性来解释,因为它相对不受研究设计的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of production and drawing as encoding techniques on recall using mixed- and pure-list designs.

We compared the benefit of production and drawing on recall of concrete and abstract words, using mixed- and pure-list designs. We varied stimulus and list types to examine whether the memory benefit from these strategies was sustained across these manipulations. For all experiments, the memory retrieval task was free recall. In Experiment 1, participants studied concrete and abstract words sequentially, with prompts to either silently-read, read aloud, write, or draw each target (intermixed). Reading aloud, writing, and drawing improved recall compared to silent reading, with drawing leading to the largest boost. Performance, however, was at floor in all but the drawing condition. In Experiment 2, the number of targets was reduced, and each strategy (between-subjects) was compared to silent-reading. We eliminated floor effects and replicated results from Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we manipulated strategy in a pure-list-design. The drawing benefit was maintained while that from production was eliminated. In all experiments, recall was higher for concrete than abstract words that were drawn; no such effect was found for words produced. Results suggest that drawing facilitates memory by enhancing semantic elaboration, whereas the production benefit is largely perceptually based. Importantly, the memory benefit conferred by drawing at encoding, unlike production, cannot be explained by a distinctiveness account as it was relatively unaffected by study design.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信