Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1140–1151 | Cite as

Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP)

  • Jeffery J. Franks
  • Carol W. Bilbrey
  • Khoo Guat Lien
  • Timothy P. McNamara
Article

Abstract

Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP), as applied to implicit memory, has tended to emphasize general forms of processing (e.g.,perceptual or conceptual processing). In the present studies, the TAP principle was employed in a more specific manner in order to more precisely assess the relations between the processing engaged during first exposure and that engaged during second exposure to items. Thirteen experiments used a two-phase, cross-task design in which participants engaged in different combinations of seven specific intentional tasks between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Maximum repetition priming was found when tasks were the same in Phases 1 and 2. When Phase 1 and Phase 2 tasks differed, there were lesser, or no, repetition priming effects, depending on the particular combination of tasks. The results demonstrate the importance of the specific intentional processes engaged during repetition priming and the potential heuristic value of TAP, as a principle and methodology, for exploring the organization of memory and related process models.

Keywords

Lexical Decision Lexical Decision Task Implicit Memory Judgment Task Repetition Priming 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, S., &Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,32, 104–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J., Morris, C. D., &Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 331–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Franks, J., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Bilbrey, C., & Roskos-Ewoldsen,B. (1998).Artifacts in attitude priming research. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  5. Gorfein, D. S., &Bubka, A. (1997). A transfer analysis of the repetition effect in the lexical and ambiguity decision tasks.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graf, P., &Ryan, L. (1990). Transfer-appropriate processing for implicit and explicit memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 978–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graf, P., &Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graf, P., &Schacter, D. L. (1987). Selective effects of interference on implicit and explicit memory for new associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kolers, P. A. (1975). Specificity of operations in sentence recognition.Cognitive Psychology,7, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolers, P. A., &Perkins, D. N. (1975). Spatial and ordinal components of form perception and literacy.Cognitive Psychology,7, 228–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolers, P. A., &Roediger, H. L., III (1984). Procedures of mind.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 425–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuçera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Morris, D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roediger, H. L., III, &Blaxton, T. A. (1987). Effects of varying modality, surface features, and retention interval on priming in wordfragment completion.Memory & Cognition,15, 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1993). Implicit memory in normal human subjects. In H. Spinnler & F. Boller (Eds.),Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 8, pp. 63–131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Roediger, H. L., III,Weldon, M. S., &Challis, B. H. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 3–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Schacter, D. L., &Graf, P. (1986). Effects of elaborative processing on implicit and explicit memory for new associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 432–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Srinivas, K. (1996). Size and reflection effects in priming: A test of transfer-appropriate processing.Memory & Cognition,24, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson-Schill, S. L., &Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1999). Priming of visual and functional knowledge on a semantic classification task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.),Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tulving, E. (1979). Relation between encoding specificity and levels of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 405–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ulrich, R., &Miller, J. (1994). Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,12, 34–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vriezen, E. R., Moscovitch, M., &Bellos, S. A. (1995). Priming effects in semantic classification tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffery J. Franks
    • 1
  • Carol W. Bilbrey
    • 1
  • Khoo Guat Lien
    • 1
  • Timothy P. McNamara
    • 1
  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashville

Personalised recommendations