Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 130–133 | Cite as

Incidental retrieval processes influence explicit test performance with data-limited cues

Brief Reports

Abstract

In two experiments, the influence of incidental retrieval processes on explicit test performance was tested. In Experiment 1, subjects studied words under four conditions (auditory-shallow, auditory-deep, visual-shallow, and visual-deep). One group of subjects received auditory and visual word-fragment completion; another group received auditory and visual word-fragment cued recall. Results indicated that changes in sensory modality between study and test reduced both recall and priming performances; levels of processing significantly affected only the cued recall test. These results indicated that incidental retrieval processes might affect explicit test performance when retrieval cues are data limited. Experiment 2 supported this conclusion by showing an effect of matching study and test modalities on explicit test performance with fragment but not with copy cues. Taken together, these results support Roediger and McDermott’s (1993) suggestion that explicit test performance is influenced by incidental retrieval processes when data-limited retrieval cues are used.

References

  1. Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 657–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, A. S., &Mitchell, D. B. (1994). A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory.Memory & Cognition,22, 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Challis, B. H., &Brodbeck, D. R. (1992). Level of processing affects priming in word fragment completion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 595–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Craik, F. I. M., Moscovitch, M., &McDowd, J. M. (1994). Contributions of surface and conceptual information to performance on implicit and explicit memory tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 864–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Habib, R. (1996).A pool of 246 auditory word fragments. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacoby, L. L., &Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacoby, L. L., Toth, J. P., &Yonelinas, A. P. (1993). Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rajaram, S., &Roediger, H. L., III (1993). Direct comparison of four implicit memory tests.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 765–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Richardson-Klavehn, A., Gardiner, J. M., &Java, R. I. (1994). Involuntary conscious memory and the method of opposition.Memory,2, 1–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Roediger, H. L., III, &Blaxton, T. A. (1987). Effects of varying modality, surface features, and retention interval on priming in word-fragment completion.Memory & Cognition,15, 379–388.Google Scholar
  12. Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1993). Implicit memory in normal human subjects. In H. Spinnler & F. Boller (Eds.),Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 63–131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1996). Implicit memory tests measure incidental retrieval.International Journal of Psychology,31, 323.Google Scholar
  14. Roediger, H. L., III,Weldon, M. S., Stadler, M. L., &Riegler, G. L. (1992). Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: Word fragment and word stem completion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1251–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schacter, D. L., Bowers, J., &Booker, J. (1989). Intention, awareness, and implicit memory: The retrieval intentionality criterion. In S. Lewandowsky, J. C. Dunn, & K. Kirsner (Eds.),Implicit memory: Theoretical issues (pp. 47–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Toth, J. P., Reingold, E. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Toward a redefinition of implicit memory: Process dissociations following elaborative processing and self-generation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotman Research InstituteBaycrest Centre for Geriatric CareNorth YorkCanada
  2. 2.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations