ArticlePDF Available

The Production Effect in Memory: Evidence That Distinctiveness Underlies the Benefit

Authors:

Abstract

The production effect is the substantial benefit to memory of having studied information aloud as opposed to silently. MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary, and Ozubko (2010) have explained this enhancement by suggesting that a word studied aloud acquires a distinctive encoding record and that recollecting this record supports identifying a word studied aloud as "old." This account was tested using a list discrimination paradigm, where the task is to identify in which of 2 studied lists a target word was presented. The critical list was a mixed list containing words studied aloud and words studied silently. Under the distinctiveness explanation, studying an additional list all aloud should disrupt the production effect in the critical list because remembering having said a word aloud in the critical list will no longer be diagnostic of list status. In contrast, studying an additional list all silently should leave the production effect in the critical list intact. These predictions were confirmed in 2 experiments.
The Production Effect in Memory:
Evidence That Distinctiveness Underlies the Benefit
Jason D. Ozubko and Colin M. MacLeod
University of Waterloo
The production effect is the substantial benefit to memory of having studied information aloud as
opposed to silently. MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary, and Ozubko (2010) have explained this
enhancement by suggesting that a word studied aloud acquires a distinctive encoding record and that
recollecting this record supports identifying a word studied aloud as “old.” This account was tested using
a list discrimination paradigm, where the task is to identify in which of 2 studied lists a target word was
presented. The critical list was a mixed list containing words studied aloud and words studied silently.
Under the distinctiveness explanation, studying an additional list all aloud should disrupt the production
effect in the critical list because remembering having said a word aloud in the critical list will no longer
be diagnostic of list status. In contrast, studying an additional list all silently should leave the production
effect in the critical list intact. These predictions were confirmed in 2 experiments.
Keywords: memory, production, distinctiveness, recognition, aloud
The category of encoding techniques that substantially benefit
memory is disappointingly small. Of course, there is rehearsal
(e.g., Rundus, 1971), the most intuitive way to increase memory.
And every mnemonics book emphasizes imagery, which dramat-
ically improves memory (e.g., Paivio, 1971). Since Craik and
Lockhart’s (1972) introduction of levels of processing, semantic
elaboration has also been well recognized, as has generation since
the seminal article of Slamecka and Graf (1978). A few other
candidates might be nominated, but the list would remain short. So
why would we ignore a potential member of this set?
In 1972, in a rarely cited article, Hopkins and Edwards reported
a remarkably simple mnemonic phenomenon that they referred to
as a pronunciation effect. Subjects studied a list of words and later
performed a recognition test. During study, half of the words were
underlined and half were not. In the between-subjects conditions,
subjects were to ignore the underlining and either read all of the
words aloud or read all of them silently. Recognition was unaf-
fected. However, in the within-subjects condition, where subjects
were to read one set aloud (e.g., underlined) and the other set
silently (e.g., nonunderlined), words studied aloud were recog-
nized about 10% better than those studied silently.
For purposes not having to do with the pronunciation enhance-
ment per se, this advantage of saying some words aloud has been
replicated a few times in the ensuing almost 40 years (Conway &
Gathercole, 1987; Dodson & Schacter, 2001; Gathercole & Con-
way, 1988; MacDonald & MacLeod, 1998) but has left little
impression in the literature. In reintroducing and more thoroughly
delineating this phenomenon, MacLeod, Gopie, Hourihan, Neary,
and Ozubko (2010) have rechristened it with a more general name:
the production effect.
One thing that makes the production effect noteworthy is its
similarity to the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978), one of
the most widely used manipulations in memory research (see
Slamecka, 1992). The generation effect has been studied directly
or indirectly in hundreds of research articles. In a recent meta-
analytic review, Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott, and McDaniel (2007)
suggested that the average improvement that generation provides
on a recognition test is roughly 10%. Remarkably, despite its
simplicity, the published evidence suggests that the production
effect is similar in magnitude to the generation effect.
Both techniques involve producing a word. However, genera-
tion appears to require more cognitive effort and semantic analysis
because subjects must actually retrieve words, as opposed to the
production effect where words are explicitly provided. If the
generation effect is taken as the hallmark of an excellent way to
increase memorability, then it is indeed surprising to find that a
simpler manipulation that does not necessarily lead to deeper
semantic processing can improve memory so much. Intriguingly,
the production effect even confirms the common intuition that
studying aloud improves retention. For these reasons, the produc-
tion effect warrants more investigation and greater visibility.
What Causes the Production Effect?
To explain the production effect, MacLeod et al. (2010; see also
Conway & Gathercole, 1987; Dodson & Schacter, 2001; Gather-
This article was published Online First August 30, 2010.
Jason D. Ozubko and Colin M. MacLeod, Department of Psychology,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
This research was supported by an Alexander Graham Bell Canada
Graduate Scholarship and by Discovery Grant A7459, both from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank
Emily Bryntwick and Molly Pottruff for their assistance with the data
collection and Ian Dobbins for helpful comments during the review pro-
cess.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason D.
Ozubko or to Colin M. MacLeod, Department of Psychology, University of
Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L
3G1. E-mail: jdozubko@uwaterloo.ca or cmacleod@uwaterloo.ca
Journal of Experimental Psychology: © 2010 American Psychological Association
Learning, Memory, and Cognition
2010, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1543–1547 0278-7393/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020604
1543
cole & Conway, 1988) have championed a distinctiveness
account—that production at study makes words distinctive and
that this distinctiveness can be used heuristically at test: “I remem-
ber saying that aloud so it must be old.” Subjects cannot use the
opposite strategy to identify silently studied words (“I remember
not saying that word aloud”), because the distracters at test were
not said aloud during study either. MacLeod et al. cast this account
in terms of the replaying of an encoding record, in line with the
proceduralist view of memory (Kolers, 1973; Kolers & Roediger,
1984). In support of this distinctiveness account, MacLeod et al.
observed that the effect persisted when subjects mouthed (but did
not speak) words at study, because mouthing still provides dis-
tinctive responses to each word. However, when subjects repeat-
edly pressed a key or repeatedly said “yes” to some words at study,
no memory advantage was observed.
Perhaps most compelling, MacLeod et al. (2010) confirmed that
the production effect occurs within subjects but not between sub-
jects (see also Dodson & Schacter, 2001; Hopkins & Edwards,
1972). This finding is in line with other effects believed to be
driven by distinctiveness. For example, the orthographic distinc-
tiveness effect—the finding that orthographically atypical words
are remembered better than less atypical words—occurs only in
mixed lists, not in pure lists (Hunt & Elliot, 1980; Hunt & Mitch-
ell, 1982). Similarly, superior memory for bizarre sentences over
common sentences, believed to be driven by the distinctiveness of
the bizarre sentences, occurs only in mixed lists, not in pure lists
(Waddill & McDaniel, 1998). McDaniel and Bugg (2008) have
recently presented a thorough analysis of this design difference,
which encompasses many well-established encoding effects, nota-
bly, generation, enactment, word frequency, perceptual interfer-
ence, and bizarreness.
Despite the similarities between the production effect and other
distinctiveness-driven phenomena, a direct test of the idea that
production relies on distinctiveness has not yet been conducted.
Our goal here was to undertake that test. To do so, we sought to
disrupt the production effect in a manner that is clearly predicted
by the distinctiveness account. If this account is correct, then
production will lead to superior recognition at test because a
distinctive element forms part of the encoding record of each word
studied aloud, an element not shared by the silent words that were
also studied or by the distracters that appeared only on the test.
Logically then, if the distracters could be made to share this
element with the aloud words, this should undermine or even
eliminate the distinctiveness that ordinarily causes the production
effect, causing the effect to diminish or disappear.
Experiment 1
Our goal was to test the production effect in a paradigm where
the distinctiveness account predicts that the effect should be dis-
rupted. Subjects studied two separate lists: a critical mixed list and
a distracting pure list. The critical list always included half words
to be spoken aloud and half words to be read silently. The key
manipulation was on the distracting list, where the words could be
studied either all aloud or all silently. At test, subjects were
required to discriminate whether each word came from the critical
mixed list or from the distracting pure list. Thus, all of the test
words had been studied: The test was a list discrimination task
(see, e.g., Hintzman, Caulton, & Levitin, 1998; Hintzman &
Waters, 1970), not a yes–no recognition task.
Under the distinctiveness account, on a standard recognition
test, recollecting that a word was read aloud ordinarily is useful for
identifying it as studied because the distracters were not read
aloud. In list discrimination, however, because words from both
the critical mixed list and the all aloud distracting pure list were
read aloud at study, recollecting that a word was read aloud should
not assist in identifying the word’s source. Furthermore, failing to
recall that a word was read aloud should not be particularly
diagnostic, as this could indicate that the word was read silently or
was read aloud but not encoded well. In other words, the absence
of a feature at retrieval is not particularly strong evidence that a
feature was absent at encoding (although a small effect might
conceivably be observed here because this is somewhat informa-
tive). However, crucially, when the distracting pure list is read
silently, a production effect should be observed because now
recollecting that a word was read aloud at study is useful for list
discrimination. Any other data pattern would be inconsistent with
the distinctiveness account.
Method
Subjects. Thirty-six University of Waterloo students partici-
pated for course credit. For the between-subjects distracting pure
list manipulation, 18 students were randomly assigned to the all
aloud condition and 18 to the all silent condition.
Stimuli and apparatus. A pool of 120 words was taken from
the Appendix in MacDonald and MacLeod (1998). The words
were all nouns from 5 to 10 characters long with frequencies
greater than 30 per million (Thorndike & Lorge, 1944). The
experiment was programmed in E-Prime Version 1.2 (www
.pstnet.com) and was carried out on IBM PC-compatible comput-
ers with 15-in. color monitors.
Procedure. For each subject, the 120 words were randomly
ordered and two sets of 32 words were selected to form the critical
mixed list and the distracting pure list. For the critical mixed list,
half of the words were randomly selected to appear in blue and half
in white, with color order random through the list. For the dis-
tracting pure list, the words appeared either all in blue (aloud) or
all in white (silent). Subjects were told to read blue words aloud
and white words silently.
During study, words were presented individually at the center of
the screen for 2 s with a 0.5-s interstimulus interval. Prior to the
test phase, subjects were instructed that all of the words had been
studied (i.e., that all words were “old”) and that their task was to
identify which list each word came from. To identify a word as
belonging to the first (mixed) list, subjects pressed c; to identify a
word as belonging to the second (pure) list, they pressed m.
Results
The results are shown in the top portion of Table 1. An alpha
level of .05 was applied throughout the analyses. Performance on
the distracting pure list did not differ as a function of whether it
was all aloud or all silent, t(34) 0.79, p.44, d0.31. This
is consistent with the absence of a between-subjects production
effect previously reported by Hopkins and Edwards (1972), Dod-
son and Schacter (2001), and MacLeod et al. (2010).
1544 RESEARCH REPORTS
Our focal analysis was a 2 (mixed list word type: aloud vs.
silent; within subjects) 2 (pure list word type: all aloud vs. all
silent; between subjects) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA)
conducted on the accuracy scores for the critical mixed list words.
Overall recognition of aloud and silent critical mixed list words
was equivalent, F(1, 34) 1. When the distracting pure list
contained only aloud words, accuracy for the critical mixed list
words was lower than when the distracting pure list contained only
silent words, F(1, 34) 7.09, MSE 0.04, p
2
.17.
Critically, consistent with the distinctiveness account, the inter-
action was significant, F(1, 34) 5.56, MSE 0.02, p
2
.14.
As Table 1 clearly shows, there was a reliable production effect for
the critical mixed list only when all words on the distracting pure
list were studied silently, t(17) 2.13, d0.50, with 14 of the 18
subjects (78%) showing the effect. The production effect disap-
peared when all words on the distracting pure list were studied
aloud, t(17) 1.24, d0.30, with only five of the 18 subjects
(28%) showing the effect.
Discussion
Consistent with the prediction of the distinctiveness account, the
production advantage usually seen for a mixed list of aloud and
silent words was eliminated when the words in an additional
distracting list were all read aloud. The production effect was,
however, robust (11%) when the words in the distracting list were
all read silently. This fits with the idea that, at test, subjects are
recollecting having read a word aloud during study and are using
this processing record to improve memory accuracy for the aloud
words. Such recollection succeeds because of the distinctiveness of
the aloud words in a mixed list only when no other aloud words are
present, as in the all silent distracting list. But when other words
are said aloud during study, as in the all aloud distracting list, such
recollection is not diagnostic of list status, and consequently the
production effect disappears.
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 constituted a conceptual replication of Experiment
1. Only one change was made: This time, the distracting pure list
preceded the critical mixed list, representing a situation of proac-
tive influence. The same prediction was made as for Experiment 1.
Method
Subjects. Thirty-six students from the same pool took part for
the same credit. Half were randomly assigned to the all aloud and
half to the all silent pure list condition.
Stimuli and apparatus. The same stimuli and apparatus were
used as in Experiment 1.
Procedure. The procedure was identical to that of Experiment
1 except that the distracting pure list now preceded the critical
mixed list, rather than following it.
Results
The results are shown in the bottom half of Table 1. As in
Experiment 1, performance on the all aloud versus all silent pure
lists did not differ between subjects, t(34) 0.55, p.58, d
0.19. This again is consistent with the uniform absence of a
between-subjects production effect in prior studies (Dodson &
Schacter, 2001; Hopkins & Edwards, 1972; MacLeod et al., 2010).
The same 2 2 mixed ANOVA was used as in Experiment 1.
Again, there was no overall difference in critical mixed list accu-
racy when the distracting pure list was all aloud versus all silent,
F(1, 34) 1. This time, however, aloud study words were recog-
nized significantly better overall than were silent study words, F(1,
34) 14.41, MSE 0.02, p
2
.30, likely because the critical
mixed list was studied immediately before the test.
Most important, as in Experiment 1, critical mixed list word
type interacted with distracting pure list type, F(1, 34) 20.53,
MSE 0.02, p
2
.38. There was a large and reliable production
effect when the distracting pure list was all silent, t(17) 6.10,
d1.44, but no production effect when the distracting pure list
was all aloud, t(17) 0.50, d0.12. The production advantage
was present for 16 of 18 subjects (89%) when the pure list was all
silent but for only seven of 18 subjects (39%) when the pure list
was all aloud.
Table 1
Results of Experiments 1 and 2
Pure list type
Mixed list
Pure listAloud Silent
MSEMSEMSE
Experiment 1: Critical mixed list first
All silent .76 .05 .65 .05 .61 .04
All aloud .56 .04 .62 .04 .65 .02
Experiment 2: Critical mixed list second
All silent .77 .04 .50 .04 .67 .03
All aloud .62 .03 .64 .04 .65 .03
Note. Mean proportions (and standard errors) of aloud versus silent studied words correctly assigned to the
critical mixed list are shown separately as a function of the type of distracting pure list (all aloud vs. all silent).
Also shown are the mean proportions (and standard errors) of words correctly assigned to the distracting pure
lists.
1545
RESEARCH REPORTS
Discussion
In sum, the results of Experiment 2 very closely paralleled those
of Experiment 1. Again, a robust production effect (27%) occurred
in the critical mixed list only when the distracting pure list com-
prised all silent words; it was eliminated when the distracting pure
list comprised all aloud words. A 2 22 ANOVA incorpo-
rating experiment as a variable further demonstrated the consis-
tency of the experiments, with no three-way interaction ( p.22).
The results of the two experiments are, therefore, thoroughly
consistent with each other and with the predictions of the distinc-
tiveness account.
General Discussion
The production effect is a simple yet effective means to improve
memory, as MacLeod et al. (2010) have argued. Indeed, it evi-
dently leads to substantial improvement, so its virtual invisibility
in the literature is surprising. To date, the few published studies
examining the benefit of production (Conway & Gathercole, 1987;
Dodson & Schacter, 2001; Gathercole & Conway, 1988; Hopkins
& Edwards, 1972; Hourihan & MacLeod, 2008; MacDonald &
MacLeod, 1998; MacLeod et al., 2010) have produced data largely
consistent with a distinctiveness account but have not directly
tested the main mechanism underlying that account. Our goal was
therefore to interfere with the production effect in a manner that
should undermine the distinctiveness account’s driving mecha-
nism.
Using a list discrimination test, Experiment 1 demonstrated that
when a second list is studied after the critical mixed list, the
production effect for the critical mixed list is eliminated when the
words from that second list are all said aloud but remains robust
when they are all read silently. Experiment 2 confirmed this
pattern when the words in the extra list were instead studied before
the critical mixed list. These results are thoroughly consistent with
a distinctiveness account: Only when recollection that a word was
said aloud is diagnostic of list status should a production effect
emerge.
These experiments confirm that recollective distinctiveness—
and hence memory—can be improved via production. Production
provides extra distinctive information which can be used heuristi-
cally at test to improve performance. This phenomenon bears some
similarity to other recent work that emphasizes the heuristic value
of using distinctive information to reject distracters—the recall-
to-reject strategy (see, e.g., Clark & Gronlund, 1996; see also the
idea of criteria recollection, e.g., Gallo, Weiss, & Schacter, 2004).
For example, using a contextual encoding manipulation, Dobbins,
Kroll, Yonelinas, and Liu (1998) found that items encoded in more
distinctive contexts were better remembered than items encoded in
less distinctive contexts but that this benefit arose primarily from
participants’ ability to reject distracters. In essence, distinctive
information did not benefit recall or hit rates but did help partic-
ipants reject novel test probes.
Generally, then, studies that find that participants use discrim-
inative information at test to strategically reject distracters also
find that distinctive information does little to boost hit rates. It is
important to realize, though, that both benefits of distinctiveness—
more hits and more correct rejections—have been previously
reported, notably by Hunt (2003). Because in traditional recogni-
tion paradigms, production seems primarily to improve memory
for target items (see MacLeod et al., 2010), production provides an
instance where distinctive information is used to increase hit rate,
whereas the recall-to-reject work focuses more on instances where
distinctive information is used to decrease false alarm rate.
Our work also bears on simple strength accounts of production.
Recall that our distinctiveness account predicted that a production
effect should emerge only when recollection that a word was said
aloud is diagnostic of list status. A straightforward strength ac-
count (see, e.g., Hovland, 1951; Wickelgren, 1969) would not
readily make this prediction. Instead, appealing to the idea of
repetition incrementing strength (see Murdock, 1989, for a re-
view), a strength account would say that words said aloud are
encoded more strongly than those said silently. If so, then the
nature of the distracting pure list should not selectively weaken
the stronger aloud words more than the weaker silent words in the
critical mixed list. Indeed, a strength account would also predict
that if the encoding of aloud words is stronger than that of silent
words this should be true even in the distracting pure list situation.
But studies have repeatedly shown that there is no production
effect between subjects, a finding which was confirmed here in
that the all aloud and all silent distracting pure list items were
equally well discriminated. The strength view is therefore wrong
on both counts.
A major empirical appeal of the production effect is its simplic-
ity. Consequently, it can easily be used in diverse situations. For
example, as a quick method for increasing the distinctiveness of
some items over others, the production effect is far easier to use
than the generation effect. Generation requires the creation of extra
cues from which the items will be generated. Further, in genera-
tion, subjects occasionally make “mistakes,” generating an item
other than the intended one. None of these issues exist for pro-
duction because the word being studied is its own cue. The
production effect may therefore prove to be a useful technique in
study situations, or whenever relatively quick and easy memory
enhancement is desired. As noted earlier, the existence of the
production effect fits with the common notion that information
studied aloud is better remembered.
In this article, we sought to examine the theoretical basis of the
production effect. Our findings are entirely consistent with a
distinctiveness account: Production makes items stand out at study,
and recollection of this is useful at test. When distinctiveness is
undermined, the production effect vanishes. Clearly, any adequate
theory needs to successfully predict not only when an effect will be
present but also when it will be disrupted or eliminated. So far, the
distinctiveness account has met this requirement for the production
effect.
References
Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. (2007). The gener-
ation effect: A meta-analytic review. Memory & Cognition, 35, 201–
210.
Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of
recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 3, 37–60.
Conway, M. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (1987). Modality and long-term
memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 341–361. doi:10.1016/
0749-596X(87)90118-5
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A
1546 RESEARCH REPORTS
framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 11, 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Dobbins, I. G., Kroll, N. E. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Liu, Q. (1998).
Distinctiveness in recognition and free recall: The role of recollection in
the rejection of the familiar. Journal of Memory and Language, 38,
381–400. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2554
Dodson, C. S., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). “If I had said it I would have
remembered it”: Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuris-
tic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 155–161.
Gallo, D. A., Weiss, J. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). Reducing false
recognition with criterial recollection tests: Distinctiveness heuristic
versus criterion shifts. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 473–493.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.002
Gathercole, S. E., & Conway, M. A. (1988). Exploring long-term modality
effects: Vocalization leads to best retention. Memory & Cognition, 16,
110–119.
Hintzman, D. L., Caulton, D. A., & Levitin, D. J. (1998). Retrieval
dynamics in recognition and list discrimination: Further evidence of
separate processes of familiarity and recall. Memory & Cognition, 26,
449462.
Hintzman, D. L., & Waters, R. M. (1970). Recency and frequency as
factors in list discrimination. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 9, 218–221. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80054-8
Hopkins, R. H., & Edwards, R. E. (1972). Pronunciation effects in recog-
nition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11,
534–537. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80036-7
Hourihan, K. L., & MacLeod, C. M. (2008). Directed forgetting meets the
production effect: Distinctive processing is resistant to intentional for-
getting. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 242–246.
doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.4.242
Hovland, C. I. (1951). Human learning and retention. In S. S. Stevens
(Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 613–689). Oxford,
England: Wiley.
Hunt, R. R. (2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate
memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 811–825. doi:10.1016/
S0749-596X(03)00018-4
Hunt, R. R., & Elliot, J. M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in
memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 49–74. doi:10.1037/0096-
3445.109.1.49
Hunt, R. R., & Mitchell, D. B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and
nonsemantic distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 81–87. doi:10.1037/0278-
7393.8.1.81
Kolers, P. A. (1973). Remembering operations. Memory & Cognition, 1,
347–355.
Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L., III. (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 425–449. doi:10.1016/
S0022-5371(84)90282-2
MacDonald, P. A., & MacLeod, C. M. (1998). The influence of attention
at encoding on direct and indirect remembering. Acta Psychologica, 98,
291–310. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00047-4
MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko,
J. D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-
tion, 36, 671–685. doi:10.1037/a0018785
McDaniel, M. A., & Bugg, J. M. (2008). Instability in memory phenomena:
A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 15, 237–255. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.237
Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1989). Learning in a distributed memory model. In C.
Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flower-
ree Symposium on Cognition (pp. 69–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Oxford, England: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Rundus, D. (1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 89, 63–77. doi:10.1037/h0031185
Slamecka, N. J. (1992). Delineation of the generation effect—A citation-
classic commentary on “The generation effect: Delineation of a phe-
nomenon,” by Slamecka, N. J. & Graf, P. Current Contents/Social &
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 10.
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of
a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning
and Memory, 4, 592–604. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher’s word book of 30,000
words. New York, NY: Columbia University Teacher’s College.
Waddill, P. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Distinctiveness effects in recall:
Differential processing or privileged retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 26,
108–120.
Wickelgren, W. A. (1969). Associative strength theory of recognition
memory for pitch. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 13–61.
doi:10.1016/0022-2496(69)90028-5
Received August 11, 2009
Revision received May 11, 2010
Accepted May 26, 2010
1547
RESEARCH REPORTS
Article
Full-text available
The current study examined whether the benefit of mixed-list production could extend to memory for background contexts using word–background context pairs. Participants studied words presented on background images; words were read aloud or silently. In Experiment 1a, half of the studied items were tested on their studied background image and half were tested on a new image using old–new recognition. Although a production effect in word recognition was observed, context reinstatement had no effect on sensitivity and only a marginal effect on hit rates; it did not interact with production. In Experiment 1b, whether participants encoded the backgrounds and whether that encoding was affected by production was tested using separate recognition tests. A production effect was found in word recognition, but there was no effect in image recognition. Experiment 2 used a cued-recall test, with the studied background images as the cues to directly test whether associations were formed between words and backgrounds at study. A production effect was found but did not interact with the presence of cues during recall. Both the benefit of production and the benefit of context reinstatement appear to be independent of one another, with production not aiding memory for the associations between items nor the context.
Article
Full-text available
Prior evidence has indicated that the act of producing a word aloud is more effortful than reading a word silently, and this effort is related to the subsequent memory advantage for produced words. In the current study, we further examined the contributions of reading effort to the overall production effect by making silent reading more effortful. To do this, participants studied words that were presented in standard lowercase font format and words that were presented in an aLtErNaTiNg CaSe font format (which should be more effortful to read). Half of the words in each font condition were read aloud, and half were read silently. Participants completed an old/new recognition test. Experiment 1 was conducted online; Experiment 2 was conducted in-lab and recorded reading times at study to confirm that alternating case font slows reading. In both experiments, we found a production effect in recognition that was uninfluenced by font type. We also found that alternating case font selectively increased recollection (but not familiarity) relative to lowercase font. Thus, the additional time to read words in a disfluent font does not appear to interact with memory benefit of producing words aloud.
Article
We compared the benefit of production and drawing on recall of concrete and abstract words, using mixed- and pure-list designs. We varied stimulus and list types to examine whether the memory benefit from these strategies was sustained across these manipulations. For all experiments, the memory retrieval task was free recall. In Experiment 1, participants studied concrete and abstract words sequentially, with prompts to either silently-read, read aloud, write, or draw each target (intermixed). Reading aloud, writing, and drawing improved recall compared to silent reading, with drawing leading to the largest boost. Performance, however, was at floor in all but the drawing condition. In Experiment 2, the number of targets was reduced, and each strategy (between-subjects) was compared to silent-reading. We eliminated floor effects and replicated results from Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we manipulated strategy in a pure-list-design. The drawing benefit was maintained while that from production was eliminated. In all experiments, recall was higher for concrete than abstract words that were drawn; no such effect was found for words produced. Results suggest that drawing facilitates memory by enhancing semantic elaboration, whereas the production benefit is largely perceptually based. Importantly, the memory benefit conferred by drawing at encoding, unlike production, cannot be explained by a distinctiveness account as it was relatively unaffected by study design.
Article
A widely held belief is that speech perception and speech production are tightly linked, with each modality available to help with learning in the other modality. This positive relationship is often summarized as perception and production being “two sides of the same coin.” There are, indeed, many situations that have shown this mutually supportive relationship. However, there is a growing body of research showing very different results, with the modalities operating independently, or even in opposition to each other. We review the now-sizeable literature demonstrating the negative effect that speech production can have on perceptual learning of speech, at multiple levels (particularly at the lexical and sublexical levels). By comparing the situations that show this pattern with ones in which more positive interactions occur, we provide an initial account of why the different outcomes are found, identifying factors that lead to either positive or negative effects of production on perception. The review clarifies the complex relationship that exists between the two modalities: They are indeed linked, but their relationship is more complicated than is suggested by the notion that they are two sides of the same coin.
Article
Full-text available
In memory tasks, items read aloud are better remembered than their silently read counterparts. This production effect is often interpreted by assuming a distinctiveness benefit for produced items, but whether this benefit also comes at a cost remains up for debate. In recall tasks, when pure lists are used in which all items are produced or read silently, studies have shown a better recall of produced items at the last serial positions, but a lower recall at the first positions. This cost of production has been interpreted by assuming that production interferes with rehearsal. However, in recognition tasks, models typically assume that the distinctiveness benefit for produced items comes at no cost. Across four experiments, participants completed a 2AFC recognition test, an old–new recognition test or an immediate serial recall test. List length was also manipulated. Results show that although the production effect is larger at the last serial positions, the cross-over interaction between the production effect and serial position observed in recall was not present in recognition. These results suggest that task-related differences in the production effect may inform us about the modulation of basic memory processes by task demands.
Article
The production effect refers to the finding that participants better remember items read aloud than items read silently. This pattern has been attributed to aloud items being relatively more distinctive in memory than silent items, owing to the integration of additional sensorimotor features within the encoding episode that are thought to facilitate performance at test. Other theorists have instead argued that producing an item encourages additional forms of processing not limited to production itself. We tested this hypothesis using a modified production task where participants named monochromatic line drawings aloud or silently either by generating the names themselves (no label condition) or reading a provided label (label condition). During a later test, participants were presented with each line drawing a second time and required to reproduce the original color and location using a continuous slider. Production was found to improve memory for visual features, but only when participants were required to generate the label themselves. Our findings support the notion that picture naming improves memory for visual features; however, this benefit appears to be driven by factors related to response generation rather than production itself.
Article
Full-text available
The production effect refers to the finding that words read aloud are better remembered than words read silently. This finding is typically attributed to the presence of additional sensorimotor features appended to the memory trace by the act of reading aloud, which are not present for items read silently. Supporting this perspective, the production effect tends to be larger for singing (the singing superiority effect) than reading aloud, possibly due to the inclusion of further sensorimotor features (e.g., more pronounced tone). However, the singing superiority effect has not always replicated. Across four experiments, we demonstrate a production effect for items read aloud but observe a singing superiority effect only when items are tested in the same color in which they were studied (with foils randomized to color). A series of meta-analytic models revealed the singing superiority effect to be smaller than previously thought and to emerge only when test items are presented in the same color in which they were studied. This outcome is inconsistent with common distinctiveness-based theoretical accounts.
Article
Full-text available
There is evidence suggesting that bilingual individuals demonstrate an advantage over monolinguals in performing various tasks related to memory and executive functions. The characteristics of this bilingual advantage are not unanimously agreed upon in the literature, and some even doubt it exists. The heterogeneity of the bilingual population may explain this inconsistency. Hence, it is important to identify different subgroups of bilinguals and characterize their cognitive performance. The current study focuses on the production effect, a well-established memory phenomenon, in bilingual young adults differing in their English and Hebrew proficiency levels, and the possible balanced bilingual advantage. The aims of this study are (1) to evaluate the production effect in three groups of bilingual participants: English-dominant bilinguals, Hebrew-dominant bilinguals, and balanced bilinguals, and (2) to examine whether memory advantage depends on varying degrees of bilingualism. One hundred twenty-one bilingual young adults who speak English and Hebrew at different levels participated. All learned lists of familiar words, in English and Hebrew, half by reading aloud and half by silent reading, followed by free recall tests. As expected, a production effect (better memory for aloud words than for silent words) was found for all groups in both languages. Balanced bilinguals remembered more words than did dominant participants, demonstrating a memory advantage in both languages. These findings support the hypothesis that the presence of cognitive advantage in bilingualism depends on the acquisition of a good proficiency level in each of the languages, with direct implications for family language policy and bilingual education.
Article
Our actions shape our everyday experience: what we experience, how we perceive, and remember it are deeply affected by how we interact with the world. Performing an action to deliver a stimulus engages neurophysiological processes which are reflected in the modulation of sensory and pupil responses. We hypothesized that these processes shape memory encoding, parsing the experience by grouping self‐ and externally generated stimuli into differentiated events. Participants encoded sound sequences, in which either the first or last few sounds were self‐generated and the rest externally generated. We tested recall of the sequential order of sounds that had originated from the same (within event) or different sources (across events). Memory performance was not higher for within‐event sounds, suggesting that actions did not structure the memory representation. However, during encoding, we observed the expected electrophysiological response attenuation for self‐generated sounds, together with increased pupil dilation triggered by actions. Moreover, at the boundary between events, physiological responses to the first sound from the new source were influenced by the direction of the source switch. Our results suggest that introducing actions creates a stronger contextual shift than removing them, even though actions do not directly contribute to memory performance. This study contributes to our understanding of how interacting with sensory input shapes experiences by exploring the relationships between action effects on sensory responses, pupil dilation, and memory encoding. Importantly, it challenges the notion of a meaningful contribution from low‐level neurophysiological mechanisms associated with action execution in the modulation of the self‐generation effect.
Article
Full-text available
Several lines of research have shown that performing movements while learning new information aids later retention of that information, compared to learning by perception alone. For instance, articulated words are more accurately remembered than words that are silently read (the production effect ). A candidate mechanism for this movement-enhanced encoding, sensorimotor prediction, assumes that acquired sensorimotor associations enable movements to prime associated percepts and hence improve encoding. Yet it is still unknown how the extent of prior sensorimotor experience influences the benefits of movement on encoding. The current study addressed this question by examining whether the production effect is modified by prior language experience. Does the production effect reduce or persist in a second language (L2) compared to a first language (L1)? Two groups of unbalanced bilinguals, German (L1) – English (L2) bilinguals (Experiment 1) and English (L1) – German (L2) bilinguals (Experiment 2), learned lists of German and English words by reading the words silently or reading the words aloud, and they subsequently performed recognition tests. Both groups showed a pronounced production effect (higher recognition accuracy for spoken compared to silently read words) in the first and second languages. Surprisingly, the production effect was greater in the second languages compared to the first languages, across both bilingual groups. We discuss interpretations based on increased phonological encoding, increased effort or attention, or both, when reading aloud in a second language.
Article
Full-text available
Used 128 undergraduates to compare the effects of conceptual and orthographic distinctiveness on recall, clustering, and Ss' verbal reports of mnemonic strategies. Although recall was facilitated by both conceptual and orthographic isolation, the 2 manipulations produced clear differences in other dependent measures. The interpretation concentrated on the different effects on encoding and retrieval of the 2 types of distinctiveness. Specifically, conceptual distinctiveness encouraged the encoding of item-specific information that influenced recognition processes in retrieval. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Conducted 4 experiments with female undergraduates in which overt rehearsal was required during the presentation of free recall lists. This rehearsal was tape-recorded and analyzed in conjunction with written recall data. In Exp. I lists of unrelated nouns were presented to 25 Ss. The serial position effect, the order of recall of items as a function of item strength, and the organization of list items were examined using rehearsal and recall protocols. The introduction of distinctive items into a free recall list affected recall of the distinctive item, items adjacent to distinctive items, and the list as a whole. Exp. II with 15 Ss examined changes in rehearsal associated with these recall effects. In Exp. III with 11 Ss, some items of a list were repeated. Recall of repeated items increased with spacing of the repetitions. 20 Ss were tested with lists containing both categorized and unrelated items in Exp. IV. Category information was used extensively by S in structuring rehearsal. Clustering in recall was related to the observed rehearsal protocols. (30 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
We present a review of global matching models of recognition memory, describing their theoretical origins and fundamental assumptions, focusing on two defining properties: (1) recognition is based solely on familiarity due to a match of test items to memory at a global level, and (2) multiple cues are combined interactively. We evaluate the models against relevant data bearing on issues including the representation of associative information, differences in verbal and environmental context effects, list-length, list-strength, and global similarity effects, and ROC functions. Two main modifications to the models are discussed: one based on the representation of associative information, and the other based on the addition of recall-like retrieval mechanisms.
Article
Two commonplace assumptions about encoding are that sentences are encoded and recognized on the basis of their semantic features primarily and that information regarding form features such as typography is typically ignored or discarded. These assumptions were tested m the present experiment where, within a signal-detection paradigm, S sorted sentences according to whether he had seen them before or not (old vs new) and, if they were old, whether their reappearance was in the same typography as on the first occurrence or a different one. Of the two typographies, one was familiar and the other unfamiliar. Results show that a considerable amount of information regarding surface features is stored for many minutes and that ease of initial encoding is inversely related to likelihood of subsequent recognition: sentences in the unfamiliar typography were remembered better. The results are probably not due to time spent encoding; control tests suggest that time spent encoding a difficult typography does not by itself increase recognition of the semantic content embodied in the typography. Other control tests show that pictorial features or images of the sentences play no significant role in their subsequent recognition. One interpretation of the results is that the analytic activities or cognitive operations that characterize initial acquisition play a significant role in subsequent recognition.
Article
Dual process models of recognition have identified two underlying processes which contribute to recognition performance: recollection, which involves the retrieval of qualitative information regarding an event occurrence, and familiarity, which represents a generalized feeling of prior occurrence. It has been proposed that recognition and free recall may be related because both involve the retrieval of qualitative event information. To examine this possibility, we compared recognition and free recall under different levels of word frequency, presentation frequency, and distinctiveness of semantic encoding. All three variables dissociated across recognition and recall. Most importantly, shifting the semantic orienting task between preexposure and study lists greatly facilitated recognition, yet left free recall unaffected. This benefit occurred primarily because the shift enabled subjects to more efficiently reject distractors that were familiar as a result of preexposure, but not encoded on the appropriate dimension. Since subjects in recall conditions were not prone to intrusions as a function of preexposure, and, in fact, could not intentionally provide sizable numbers of these items, such a selection mechanism was unnecessary. The current findings, in conjunction with those from process dissociation studies, emphasize the role of recollection in terms of selective responding in the presence of highly familiar competitors. Retrieved information which is not distinctive cannot serve as a basis for excluding alternative sources, and therefore will not contribute to performance nor be reflected in estimates of recollection. As a result, recollection estimates may often diverge from free recall performance.
Article
List discrimination (LD) performance was measured in an experimental design in which effects of recency and frequency could be assessed independently. Two groups of Ss were each presented with two word lists and later were asked to identify list membership of the words. Recency and frequency (number of repetitions) of words were manipulated within List 1 in a way that avoided their confounding, while frequency of List 2 words was varied between groups. LD performance on a List 1 word depended on: (a) its difference from List 2 in recency, (b) its difference from List 2 in frequency, and also (c) its absolute frequency. Thus, LD seems to be based on discriminations along separate recency and frequency dimensions of memory, and frequency apparently makes a second contribution by affecting list organization.
Article
Two experiments were conducted to examine the prediction from frequency theory that recognition memory should be better for pronounced words than for unpronounced words. The first experiment employed a forced-choice recognition test; an old-new recognition test was used in the second experiment. Pronunciation does not improve recognition memory when performance of a group that pronounces all of the study words is compared to that for a group that studies all the words silently; however, pronounced words are better recognized than unpronounced words in a mixed-list task in which half of the items are pronounced at the time of study and half are not. The observed pronunciation effect seems to be due at least as much to lowered recognition performance for unpronounced words as it is to improved recognition memory for pronounced words.
Article
The prevailing metaphor for studies of learning and memory emphasizes the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of “information”; within this framework, mind is often treated as if it were a physical object and information similarly is assumed to have physicalistic properties. Evidence that supports a more process-oriented view of information processing is offered. Mind is described in terms of skill in manipulating symbols and the notion of skills is shown to provide a useful framework for accounting for significant aspects of cognitive processes. Evidence supporting the procedural view includes studies that show that the means of acquisition of information form part of its representation in mind, that recognition varies with the similarity of procedures in acquisition and test, and that transfer between tasks varies with the degree of correspondence of underlying procedures.