The aim of this study was to show that sensory–motor consequences of past actions form part of memory trace components cued by current experience. In a first task participants had to learn a list of words. Then in a guessing task they played against the computer. Finally, in a recognition task, they had to judge if the words were or were not present in the learning task. Words appeared either in the colour associated with success or failure in the guessing task, or in a non-informative colour. In the first experiment, results show that when the words to be judged were in the colour associated with success, participants answered faster and produced more “old” responses than when the words to be judged were in the colour associated with failure in the previous task. Moreover, when the words to be judged were in the colour associated with failure, participants were slower and produced less “old” responses than when the words were in a colour not informative of success or failure. The second experiment confirms that the results obtained in Experiment 1 were linked to the sensory–motor consequences of past actions associated with the colour and not to the colour itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
A' = 1−xy, xy = (x + y)/4, x = p(FA)/p(HIT), y = p(O)/p(CR).
Arndt, J. (2006). Distinctive information and false recognition: the contribution of encoding and retrieval factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 113–130.
Borghi, A. M. (2004). Object concepts and action: extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96.
Borghi, A. M. (2005). Object concepts and action. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 8–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond: acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia, 48, 763–773.
Brouillet, T., Heurley, L., Martin, S., & Brouillet, D. (2010). The embodied cognition theory and the motor component of “yes” and “no” verbal responses. Acta Psychologica, 134, 310–317.
Coello, Y., & Bartolo, A. (2012). Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. Hove: Psychology Press.
Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(3), 275–277.
Donaldson, W. (1993). Accuracy of d′ and A′ as estimates of sensitivity. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(4), 271–274.
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.
Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008). Automatic vigilance for negative words is categorical and general. Emotion, 8, 453–457.
Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.
Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: a theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48–7, 905–922.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565.
Hintzman, D. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: a simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 76, 96–101.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). ‘Schema abstraction’ in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428.
Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95(4), 528–551.
Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176–186.
Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: on the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, Harward University Press, 1983, p. 1328.
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 481–537.
Labeye, E., Oker, A., Badard, G., & Versace, R. (2008). Activation and integration of motor components in a short-term priming paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 129, 108–111.
Madan, C. R., & Singhal, A. (2012a). Using actions to enhance memory: effects of enactment, gestures, and exercise on human memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 507.
Madan, C., & Singhal, A. (2012b). Encoding the world around us: motor-related processing influences verbal memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1563–1570.
Nairne, J. S. (2006). Modeling distinctiveness: implications for general memory theory. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 27–46). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2008). Adaptive memory: is survival processing special? Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 377–385.
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: ancestral priorities and the mnemonic value of survival processing. Cognitive Processing, 61, 1–22.
Noë, A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974.
Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 176–188.
Tulving, E. (1995). Organization of memory: Quo vadis? In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 839–847). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Versace, R., Labeye, E., Badard, G., & Rose, M. (2009). The contents of long-term memory and emergence. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 522–560.
Versace, R., Vallet, G., Riou, B., Lesourd, M., Labeye, E., & Brunel, L. (2014). Act-In: an integrated view of memory mechanisms. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 280–306.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1024–1037.
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1989). Selective attention, variable processing, and distributed representation: preserving particular experiences of general structures. In R. G. M. Morris (Ed.), Parallel distributed processing: implications for psychology and neurobiology (pp. 76–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.
All co-authors would like to thank Lindsay Rondot for her precious help as a native English speaker.
About this article
Cite this article
Brouillet, D., Vagnot, C., Milhau, A. et al. Sensory–motor properties of past actions bias memory in a recognition task. Psychological Research 79, 678–686 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0600-6
- False Alarm
- Motor Action
- Response Latency
- Learning Task
- Recognition Task