Memory & Cognition

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 412–421 | Cite as

Memory for actions: Self-performed tasks and the reenactment effect

Article

Abstract

Encoding action phrases by enactment (self-performed tasks, or SPTs) leads to better memory than does observing actions (experimenter-performed tasks, or EPTs) or hearing action phrases (Engelkamp, 1998). In addition, recognition memory for SPTs is enhanced when test items are reenacted. Experiment 1 demonstrated a reenactment effect for EPTs, as well as for SPTs, indicating that the effect can be based on visual, as well as motoric, feedback. However, the reenactment effect in SPTs was found even when the participants were blindfolded at test (Experiment 2), indicating that the basis for the reenactment effect differs across SPTs and EPTs. Experiments 3 and 4 provided additional evidence that visual feedback is not critical for reenactment recognition in the case of SPTs. In addition, these experiments failed to show a hand congruency effect (enhanced recognition when the same hand enacts at study and at test), indicating that this effect is not as generalizable as the reenactment effect. These results have important implications for the motor-encoding hypothesis of the enactment effect.

References

  1. Backman, L., &Nilsson, L. G. (1985). Prerequisites for lack of age differences in memory performance.Experimental Aging Research,11, 67–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Backman, L., Nilsson, L. G., &Kormi-Nouri, R. (1993). Attentional demands and recall of verbal and color information in action events.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,34, 246–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, R. L. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,22, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, R. L., Peterson, M., &Mantini-Atkinson, T. (1987). Interevent differences in event memory: Why are some events more recallable than others?Memory & Cognition,15, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engelkamp, J. (1998).Memory for actions. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Engelkamp, J. (2001a). Action memory: A systems-oriented approach. In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn, J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M. A. Foley (Eds.),Memory for action: A distinct form of episodic memory? (pp. 49–96). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Engelkamp, J. (2001b). What does it mean that the motor component is not crucial? Comments on Kormi-Nouri and Nilsson. In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn, J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M. A. Foley (Eds.),Memory for action: A distinct form of episodic memory? (pp. 144–150). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Engelkamp, J., &Zimmer, H. D. (1985). Motor programs and their relation to semantic memory.German Journal of Psychology,9, 239–254.Google Scholar
  10. Engelkamp, J., &Zimmer, H. D. (1994). Motor similarity in subjectperformed tasks.Psychological Research,57, 47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelkamp, J., &Zimmer, H. D. (1997). Sensory factors in memory for subject-performed tasks.Acta Psychologica,96, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., &Biegelmann, U. E. (1993). Bizarreness effects in verbal tasks and subject-performed tasks.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,5, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., Mohr, G., &Sellen, O. (1994). Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition.Memory & Cognition,22, 34–39.Google Scholar
  14. Helstrup, T. (1986). Separate memory laws for recall of performed acts?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,27, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hornstein, S. L. (2001).Memory for action events: The effects of reenactment during retrieval and enactment on source discrimination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Methodist University.Google Scholar
  16. Hornstein, S. L., &Mulligan, N. W. (2001). Memory for action events: The role of objects in memory of self- and other-performed tasks.American Journal of Psychology,114, 199–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kormi-Nouri, R. (2000). The role of movement and object in action memory: A comparative study between blind, blindfolded and sighted subjects.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,41, 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kormi-Nouri, R., &Nilsson, L. G. (2001). The motor component is not crucial! In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn, J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M. A. Foley (Eds.),Memory for action: A distinct form of episodic memory? (pp. 97–111). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kormi-Nouri, R., Nyberg, L., &Nilsson, L. G. (1994). The effect of retrieval enactment on recall of subject-performed tasks and verbal tasks.Memory & Cognition,22, 723–728.Google Scholar
  20. Nilsson, L. G. (2000). Remembering actions and words. In F. I. M. Craik & E. Tulving (Eds.),Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 137–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nilsson, L. G., &Kormi-Nouri, R. (2001). What is the meaning of a memory-systems approach? Comments on Engelkamp. In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn, J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M. A. Foley (Eds.),Memory for action: A distinct form of episodic memory? (pp. 136–143). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Norris, M. P., &West, R. L. (1993). Activity memory and aging: The role of motor retrieval and strategic processing.Psychology & Aging,8, 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roediger, H. L., III, &Guynn, M. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.),Handbook of perception and cognition: Memory (2nd ed., pp. 197–236). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Saltz, E., &Dixon, D. (1982). Let’s pretend: The role of motoric imagery in memory for sentences and words.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,34, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill
  2. 2.Southern Methodist UniversityDallas

Personalised recommendations