Dual-memory retrieval efficiency after practice: effects of strategy manipulations
- 60 Downloads
The study investigated practice effects, instruction manipulations, and the associated cognitive architecture of dual-memory retrieval from a single cue. In two experiments, we tested predictions about the presence of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval within the framework of the set-cue bottleneck model. Both experiments included three experimental laboratory sessions and involved computerized assessments of dual-memory retrieval performance with strategy instruction manipulations. In Experiment 1, subjects were assigned to three distinct dual-task practice instruction groups: (1) a neutral instruction group without a specific direction on how to solve the task (i.e., neutral instruction), (2) an instruction to synchronize the responses (i.e., synchronize instruction), and (3) an instruction to use a sequential response style (i.e., immediate instruction). Results indicate that strategy instructions are able to effectively influence dual retrieval during practice. Mainly, the instruction to synchronize responses led to the presence of learned retrieval parallelism. Experiment 2 provided an assessment of the cognitive processing architecture of dual-memory retrieval. The results provide support for the presence of a structural bottleneck that cannot be eliminated by extensive practice and instruction manipulations. Further results are discussed with respect to the set-cue bottleneck model.
We would like to thank Anja Skoglund, Merle Schüler and Cerly Teymourian for their assistance with data collection. The study and data collection have been performed in accordance with Standard 8 of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct. The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or clinical patient data. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and /or publication of the article. This study was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) under grant number STR 1223/1.
The study was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) under grant number STR 1223/1.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and /or publication of the article.
The study and data collection have been performed in accordance with Standard 8 of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct. The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or clinical patient data. All procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies performed on animals.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). The d2 test of attention. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
- Brüning, J., & Manzey, D. (2018). Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict? Psychological Research, 82(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0924-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1989). NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. P. (2004). Students’ resistance to change in learning strategies courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 2–11.Google Scholar
- JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.6) [Computer software].Google Scholar
- Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2008). Task prioritisation in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maquestiaux, F., Laguë-Beauvais, M., Bherer, L., & Ruthruff, E. (2008). Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1262–1282. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54402. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt, K., & Metzler, P. (1992). Wortschatztest (WST)(“German vocabulary test for crystalline intelligence estimation”). Weinheim: Beltz Test GmbH.Google Scholar
- Sternberg, R. J., Zhang, L.-F., & Rayner, S. (2011). Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking. Berlin: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Strobach, T., Frensch, P., Müller, H., & Schubert, T. (2012b). Age-and practice-related influences on dual-task costs and compensation mechanisms under optimal conditions of dual-task performance. Aging Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.630973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-fourth edition (WAIS–IV): San Antonio. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar