Abstract
Several studies have demonstrated that divided attention at encoding significantly reduces memory performance, whereas divided attention at retrieval affects memory performance only minimally. However, the possibility exists that retrieval processes have shown such resilience because the concurrent tasks used have often not been very demanding. To assess this possibility, we used independent manipulations of the concurrent task during either encoding or retrieval that included stimulus-response compatibility and participant- versus experimenter-controlled pace. In addition, we manipulated the distribution of practice that the participants received with the primary and the concurrent tasks. The results replicated and extended those recently reported by Rohrer and Pashler (2003), indicating that although memory performance is negatively affected by divided attention at retrieval, especially with noncompatible stimulus-response mapping in the concurrent task, this effect was much smaller than that at encoding, in line with the asymmetry notion. Furthermore, experimenter versus participant control of the concurrent task had no effect on memory retrieval. Finally, under conditions of equal practice with both the memory and the concurrent tasks, memory retrieval was affected only to a small degree. In contrast to encoding processes, the processes involved in retrieval accuracy appear, in many cases, to be less interrupted by divided attention, although this protection requires substantial resources.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, N. D., Craik, F. I. M., &Naveh-Benjamin, M. (1998). The attentional demands of encoding and retrieval in younger and older adults: I. Evidence from divided attention costs.Psychology & Aging,13, 405–423.
Baddeley, A. [D.], Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., &Thomson, N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 518–540.
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., &Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 159–180.
Craik, F. I. M., Naveh-Benjamin, M., &Anderson, N. D. (1998). Encoding and retrieval processes: Similarities and differences. In M. A. Conway, S. E. Gathercole, & C. Cornoldi (Eds.),Theories of memory II (pp. 61–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Craik, F. I. M., Naveh-Benjamin, M., Ishaik, G., &Anderson, N. D. (2000). Divided attention during encoding and retrieval: Differential control effects?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1744–1749.
Fernandes, M. A., &Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 155–176.
Fernandes, M. A., &Moscovitch, M. (2002). Factors modulating the effect of divided attention during retrieval of words.Memory & Cognition,30, 731–744.
Fernandes, M. A., &Moscovitch, M. (2003). Interference effects from divided attention during retrieval in younger and older adults.Psychology & Aging,18, 219–230.
Hicks, J. L., &Marsh, R. L. (2000). Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1483–1498.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30 513–541.
Johnston, W. A., Greenberg, S. N., Fisher, R. P., &Martin, D. W. (1970). Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 164–171.
Kerr, B. (1973). Processing demands during mental operations.Memory & Cognition,1, 401–412.
Martin, D. W. (1970). Residual processing capacity during verbal organization in memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 391–397.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Gavrilescu, D., &Anderson, N. D. (2000). Asymmetry between encoding and retrieval processes: Evidence from divided attention and a calibration analysis.Memory & Cognition,28, 965–976.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., &Dori, H. (1998). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: Further support for an asymmetry.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1091–1104.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., &Krueger, S. (2005). Divided attention in younger and older adults: Effects of strategy and relatedness on memory performance and secondary task costs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 520–537.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Perretta, J. G., &Tonev, S. T. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 609–625.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., &Guez, Y. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: Assessment of attentional costs and a componential analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1461–1482.
Park, D. C., Smith, A. D., Dudley, W. N., &Lafronza, V. N. (1989). Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1185–1191.
Pashler, H. (1998).The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rohrer, D., &Pashler, H. E. (2003). Concurrent task effects on memory retrieval.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 96–103.
Troyer, A. K., Winocur, G., Craik, F. I. M., &Moscovitch, M. (1999). Source memory and divided attention: Reciprocal costs to primary and secondary tasks.Neuropsychology,13, 467–474.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Research Board, University of Missouri, Columbia, to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A. & Fisher, T. Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry. Memory & Cognition 34, 90–101 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193389
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193389