混合惯用手者与惯用右手者没有偶然记忆优势:早期研究的矛盾结果

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Perceptual and Motor Skills Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1177/00315125241291266
Henriette Johansen, Emilie H Rusten, René Westerhausen
{"title":"混合惯用手者与惯用右手者没有偶然记忆优势:早期研究的矛盾结果","authors":"Henriette Johansen, Emilie H Rusten, René Westerhausen","doi":"10.1177/00315125241291266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals who vary their preferred hand when performing different types of manual activities, so-called mixed handers (MH), have been frequently reported to outperform individuals with a consistent (right) hand preference (cRH) on tasks assessing declarative-memory functions. For example, in one influential study, this MH advantage extended to incidental learning from presumed \"deep\" semantic processing of verbal stimuli but not from \"shallow\" phonemic or structural processing. In the present study, we aimed to replicate this research finding in two separate participant samples. First, in a pre-registered and sample-size planned experiment we confronted 49 participants (23 MH; 26 cRH) with \"phonemic\" and \"semantic\" word evaluation tasks (using a within design), followed by a surprise delayed recognition test. In a second experiment, we repeated the same procedure with 65 other participants (31 MH, 34 cRH). A mixed-effect analyses of variance found a significant main effect of Encoding Condition (phonemic vs. semantic tasks) in both experiments (effect size: <i>η</i><sub><i>p</i></sub><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .81 to .85), indicating the classical level-of processing effect with higher recognition hits and sensitivity (<i>d'</i>) for words that followed semantic versus phonemic encoding. However, the predicted interaction effect of Encoding Condition with Handedness Group was not statistically significant for either sample (all <i>η</i><sub><i>p</i></sub><sup><i>2</i></sup> < .03), nor was the main effect of Handedness Group. Thus, our findings conflicted with those of the original study in two independent samples. As we had sufficient statistical power to be confident in our failure to detect a genuine group difference, we cannot confirm the previously reported MH over cRH advantage in incidental learning of verbal material. We discuss possible reasons for these contradictory results and the theoretical implications of this discovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19869,"journal":{"name":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","volume":" ","pages":"2049-2068"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Incidental Memory Advantage for Mixed Handed vs. Consistent Right Handed Participants: Conflicting Results From Earlier Research.\",\"authors\":\"Henriette Johansen, Emilie H Rusten, René Westerhausen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00315125241291266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Individuals who vary their preferred hand when performing different types of manual activities, so-called mixed handers (MH), have been frequently reported to outperform individuals with a consistent (right) hand preference (cRH) on tasks assessing declarative-memory functions. For example, in one influential study, this MH advantage extended to incidental learning from presumed \\\"deep\\\" semantic processing of verbal stimuli but not from \\\"shallow\\\" phonemic or structural processing. In the present study, we aimed to replicate this research finding in two separate participant samples. First, in a pre-registered and sample-size planned experiment we confronted 49 participants (23 MH; 26 cRH) with \\\"phonemic\\\" and \\\"semantic\\\" word evaluation tasks (using a within design), followed by a surprise delayed recognition test. In a second experiment, we repeated the same procedure with 65 other participants (31 MH, 34 cRH). A mixed-effect analyses of variance found a significant main effect of Encoding Condition (phonemic vs. semantic tasks) in both experiments (effect size: <i>η</i><sub><i>p</i></sub><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .81 to .85), indicating the classical level-of processing effect with higher recognition hits and sensitivity (<i>d'</i>) for words that followed semantic versus phonemic encoding. However, the predicted interaction effect of Encoding Condition with Handedness Group was not statistically significant for either sample (all <i>η</i><sub><i>p</i></sub><sup><i>2</i></sup> < .03), nor was the main effect of Handedness Group. Thus, our findings conflicted with those of the original study in two independent samples. As we had sufficient statistical power to be confident in our failure to detect a genuine group difference, we cannot confirm the previously reported MH over cRH advantage in incidental learning of verbal material. We discuss possible reasons for these contradictory results and the theoretical implications of this discovery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2049-2068\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241291266\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241291266","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经常有报告称,在进行不同类型的手工活动时,偏好用不同手的人,即所谓的混合用手者(MH),在评估陈述性记忆功能的任务中,表现优于具有一致(右手)偏好(cRH)的人。例如,在一项颇具影响力的研究中,MH的这种优势延伸到了对言语刺激的 "深层 "语义加工的附带学习,而不是 "浅层 "音位或结构加工的附带学习。在本研究中,我们的目标是在两个不同的参与者样本中复制这一研究发现。首先,在一项预先登记和样本量计划的实验中,我们对 49 名参与者(23 名 MH;26 名 cRH)进行了 "音位 "和 "语义 "词语评估任务(采用内部设计),然后进行了突击延迟识别测试。在第二个实验中,我们对另外 65 名参与者(31 名 MH,34 名 cRH)重复了同样的程序。混合效应方差分析发现,在这两项实验中,编码条件(音位任务与语义任务)的主效应都很显著(效应大小:ηp2 = .81 到 .85),这表明了经典的加工水平效应,即语义编码后的单词比音位编码后的单词具有更高的识别命中率和灵敏度(d')。然而,在两个样本中,编码条件与手性组的交互效应在统计学上都不显著(所有 ηp2 < .03),手性组的主效应也不显著。因此,在两个独立样本中,我们的研究结果与原始研究结果相冲突。由于我们有足够的统计能力来确信我们未能检测到真正的组间差异,因此我们不能证实之前报道的在言语材料的附带学习中,MH 比 cRH 更具优势。我们将讨论这些矛盾结果的可能原因以及这一发现的理论意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No Incidental Memory Advantage for Mixed Handed vs. Consistent Right Handed Participants: Conflicting Results From Earlier Research.

Individuals who vary their preferred hand when performing different types of manual activities, so-called mixed handers (MH), have been frequently reported to outperform individuals with a consistent (right) hand preference (cRH) on tasks assessing declarative-memory functions. For example, in one influential study, this MH advantage extended to incidental learning from presumed "deep" semantic processing of verbal stimuli but not from "shallow" phonemic or structural processing. In the present study, we aimed to replicate this research finding in two separate participant samples. First, in a pre-registered and sample-size planned experiment we confronted 49 participants (23 MH; 26 cRH) with "phonemic" and "semantic" word evaluation tasks (using a within design), followed by a surprise delayed recognition test. In a second experiment, we repeated the same procedure with 65 other participants (31 MH, 34 cRH). A mixed-effect analyses of variance found a significant main effect of Encoding Condition (phonemic vs. semantic tasks) in both experiments (effect size: ηp2 = .81 to .85), indicating the classical level-of processing effect with higher recognition hits and sensitivity (d') for words that followed semantic versus phonemic encoding. However, the predicted interaction effect of Encoding Condition with Handedness Group was not statistically significant for either sample (all ηp2 < .03), nor was the main effect of Handedness Group. Thus, our findings conflicted with those of the original study in two independent samples. As we had sufficient statistical power to be confident in our failure to detect a genuine group difference, we cannot confirm the previously reported MH over cRH advantage in incidental learning of verbal material. We discuss possible reasons for these contradictory results and the theoretical implications of this discovery.

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
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Perceptual and Motor Skills PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
110
×
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