Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (6) : 706-715     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00706
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Effects of target detection on memory retrieval
HUANG Yanqing1,2, MENG Yingfang1()
1 School of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China
2 School of Education and Music, Sanming University, Sanming 365004, China
Download: PDF(535 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

Many previous studies have explored the relationship between retrieval interference and explicit memory by comparing memory performance in the divided-attention condition with that in the full-attention condition. However, relatively few studies have discussed the effect of target detection on explicit memory during retrieval in dual-task situations by comparing a target detection condition, in which participants carry out a recognition task and press the spacebar simultaneously when a target appears, with a distractor rejection condition, in which participants perform the same recognition task and do not respond when they see a distractor. Because the detection of a target requires more attention than the rejection of a distractor, an interesting question remains as to whether target detection and distractor rejection have different influences on recognition memory.

Sixty undergraduate students (30 students in experiment 1 and 30 students in experiment 2) participated in this study. A study-test (encoding/recognition) paradigm was adopted, and the participants were required to perform a shallow/deep encoding task with two-character Chinese words as stimuli. They were then asked to conduct a target detection task and an old/new recognition task simultaneously in the retrieval phase. For the target detection task, in experiment 1, the participants were instructed to press the spacebar (overt detection); in experiment 2, the participants were instructed to perform a counting operation (covert detection) when they detected the target (a “+”) rather than the distractor (a “-”). The participants were told that the recognition task and the target detection task were equally important. They were asked to perform both tasks as quickly and as accurately as possible. The reaction time (RT) and accuracy data in the retrieval phase were recorded and analyzed by analysis of variance.

The results showed that in experiment 1 (the keypress response task) and experiment 2(the counting response task), regardless of the kind of processing was required (i.e., shallow or deep processing), the reaction times for the old words were significantly shorter in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the accuracy scores for recognizing the old words were significantly higher in the target condition than in the distractor condition, indicating that explicit memory retrieval was regulated by the participants' available attention resources. However, for the new words, we found the exactly opposite phenomenon: the reaction times were significantly longer in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the accuracy scores were also significantly lower in the target condition than in the distractor condition. More importantly, we calculated the sensitivity index (d′) and decision criterion (C) established by signal detection theory. The participants' sensitivity indexes showed no significant variations between the target condition and the distractor condition, but the mean values of the decision criteria decreased in the target condition when compared to those in the distractor condition.

The results revealed that detecting a target in the explicit memory retrieval phase did not boost the retrieval of words but decrease participants' decision criteria. Participants responded in a more liberal way in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the effects of target detection on explicit memory retrieval may not be affected by the depth of processing and different reaction modes. Thus, explicit memory retrieval was also modulated by the available attention resources and, therefore, was not wholly automatic.

Keywords attentional boost effect      target detection      memory retrieval      dual task     
PACS:  B842  
Corresponding Authors: Yingfang MENG     E-mail: 175695016@qq.com
Issue Date: 22 April 2020
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yanqing HUANG
Yingfang MENG
Cite this article:   
Yanqing HUANG,Yingfang MENG. Effects of target detection on memory retrieval[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(6): 706-715.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00706     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2020/V52/I6/706
指标 深加工旧词 浅加工旧词 新词
目标探测 分心拒绝 目标探测 分心拒绝 目标探测 分心拒绝
反应时 798 (206) 929 (233) 824 (246) 891 (255) 987 (315) 892 (233)
正确率 0.81 (0.14) 0.61 (0.20) 0.57 (0.18) 0.34 (0.19) 0.60 (0.21) 0.77 (0.19)
  
条件类型 实验1 实验2
d C d C
深加工目标词 1.32 (0.82) -0.32 (0.44) 1.51 (0.72) -0.38 (0.46)
深加工分心词 1.23 (0.92) 0.30 (0.45) 1.36 (0.76) 0.31 (0.52)
浅加工目标词 0.55 (0.35) 0.07 (0.57) 1.50 (0.39) 0.13 (0.58)
浅加工分心词 0.48 (0.56) 0.68 (0.57) 1.37 (0.54) 0.81 (0.47)
  
指标 深加工旧词 浅加工旧词 新词
目标探测 分心拒绝 目标探测 分心拒绝 目标探测 分心拒绝
反应时 736 (188) 814 (219) 785 (235) 887 (280) 871 (210) 808 (257)
正确率 0.85 (0.11) 0.61 (0.21) 0.54 (0.19) 0.28 (0.14) 0.62 (0.22) 0.80 (0.13)
  
[1] 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 and Aging, 13(3), 405-423.
[2] Anderson, N. D., Iidaka, T., Cabeza, R., Kapur, S., McIntosh, A. R., & Craik, F. I. M . (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding-and retrieval-related brain activity: A pet study of younger and older adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 775-792.
doi: 10.1162/089892900562598 url: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/089892900562598
[3] Aston-Jones, G. D., & Cohen, J . (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403-450.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709
[4] Baddeley, A., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., & Thomson, N . (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 518-540.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.518 url: http://content.apa.org/journals/xge/113/4/518
[5] Cohen, J . (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
[6] Craik, F. I. M., Eftekhari, E., & Binns, M. A . (2018). Effects of divided attention at encoding and retrieval: Further data. Memory & Cognition, 46(8), 1263-1277.
[7] 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(2), 159-180.
[8] Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S . (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
[9] 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, and Cognition, 26(6), 1744-1749.
[10] 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(2), 155-176.
[11] Fernandes, M. A., & Moscovitch, M . (2003). Interference effects from divided attention during retrieval in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 219-230.
[12] Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L . (2000). Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1483-1498.
[13] Iidaka, T., Anderson, N. D., Kapur, S., Cabez, R., & Craik, F. I. M . (2000). The effect of divided attention on encoding and retrieval in episodic memory revealed by positron emission tomography. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(2), 267-280.
doi: 10.1162/089892900562093 url: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/089892900562093
[14] Jacoby, L. L . (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30(5), 513-541.
[15] Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K . (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(2), 126-135.
[16] Kaneko, Y., & Sakai, K . (2015). Dissociation in decision bias mechanism between probabilistic information and previous decision. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 261.
[17] Kent, C., & Lamberts, K . (2006). The time course of perception and retrieval in matching and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 920-931.
[18] Kurilla, B. P., & Westerman, D. L . (2008). Processing fluency affects subjective claims of recollection. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 82-92.
[19] Lozito, J. P., & Mulligan, N. W . (2006). Exploring the role of attention during memory retrieval: Effects of semantic encoding and divided attention. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 986-998.
[20] Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D . (2004). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology press.
[21] Makovski, T., Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V . (2011). Attending to unrelated targets boosts short-term memory for color arrays. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1498-1505.
[22] Meng, Y. F . (2010). The asymmetric relationship between encoding and retrieval. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(12), 1926-1933.
[22] [ 孟迎芳 . (2010). 记忆编码与提取的非对称关系. 心理科学进展, 18(12), 1926-1933.]
[23] Meng, Y. F., & Guo, C. Y . (2007). The asymmetric effect of interference at encoding or retrieval on implicit and explicit memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(4), 579-588.
[23] [ 孟迎芳, 郭春彦 . (2007). 编码与提取干扰对内隐和外显记忆的非对称性影响. 心理学报, 39(4), 579-588.]
[24] Meng, Y. F., & Guo, C. Y . (2009). The asymmetric relationship between encoding and retrieval in implicit and explicit memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(8), 694-705.
[24] [ 孟迎芳, 郭春彦 . (2009). 内隐与外显记忆的编码与提取非对称性关系. 心理学报, 41(8), 694-705.]
[25] Meng, Y. F., & Lin, H. R . (2018). Attentional boost effect: New insights on relationship between attention and memory. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 221-228.
[25] [ 孟迎芳, 林惠茹 . (2018). 注意促进效应: 注意与记忆关系的新见解. 心理科学进展, 26(2), 221-228.]
[26] Meng, Y. F., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, H. R . (2018). The role of distractor inhibition in the attentional boost effect: Evidence from the R/K paradigm. Memory, 27(6), 750-757.
doi: 10.1080/09658211.2018.1563188 url: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09658211.2018.1563188
[27] Mulligan, N. W., Spataro, P., & Picklesimer, M . (2014). The attentional boost effect with verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1049-1063.
doi: 10.1037/a0036163 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0036163
[28] Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Brubaker, M. S . (2019). Are the effects of divided attention on memory encoding processes due to the disruption of deep-level elaborative processes? Evidence from cued- and free-recall tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 106, 108-117.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2019.02.007 url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749596X1930021X
[29] Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., & Kreuger, 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, and Cognition, 31(3), 520-537.
[30] Olds, J. M., & Westerman, D. L . (2012). Can fluency be interpreted as novelty? Retraining the interpretation of fluency in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 653-664.
[31] Pape, A.-A., Noury, N., & Siegel, M . (2017). Motor actions influence subsequent sensorimotor decisions. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 15913.
[32] Pashler, H . (1994). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 330-342.
[33] Rossi-Arnaud, C., Spataro, P., Saraulli, D., Mulligan, N. W., Sciarretta, A., Marques, V. R. S., & Cestari, V . (2014). The attentional boost effect in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(3), 588-597.
[34] Spataro, P., Mulligan, N. W., & Rossi-Arnaud, C . (2013). Divided attention can enhance memory encoding: The attentional boost effect in implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1223-1231.
[35] Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V . (2010). The attentional boost effect: Transient increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task. Cognition, 115(1), 118-132.
[36] Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V . (2011). The role of timing in the attentional boost effect. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(2), 389-404.
[37] Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V . (2012). Goal-relevant events need not be rare to boost memory for concurrent images. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74(1), 70-82.
[38] Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V . (2013). Attentional load and attentional boost: A review of data and theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 274.
[39] Swallow, K. M., Makovski, T., & Jiang, Y. V . (2012). Selection of events in time enhances activity throughout early visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108(12), 3239-3252.
[40] Westerman, D. L., Lloyd, M. E., & Miller, J. K . (2002). The attribution of perceptual fluency in recognition memory: The role of expectation. Journal of Memory & Language, 47(4), 607-617.
[41] Whittlesea , & Bruce, W. A . (2002). False memory and the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: The prototype- familiarity illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 96-115.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.96 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.96
[42] Wolpert, D. M., & Landy, M. S . (2012). Motor control is decision-making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 996-1003.
doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003 url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003
[43] Wurtz, P., Reber, R., & Zimmermann, T. D . (2008). The feeling of fluent perception: A single experience from multiple asynchronous sources. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 171-184.
doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.07.001 url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810007000761
[1] MENG Yingfang,YE Xiumin,MA Huijiao. Comparing the attentional boost effect between classified learning and mixed learning[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(2): 139-148.
[2] ZHANG Dandan,LIN Yiqin,LIU Yunzhe,LUO Yuejia,JIANG Donghong. Memory encoding, retention and retrieval of disgusting and fearful faces[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(1): 36-47.
[3] LIN Wuji, MENG Yingfang, LIN Jingyuan.  Effects of interference on retrieval process in implicit memory[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 897-908.
[4] Fan Chenlei,Zhang Ailing. The Relationship between Attitude Strength and Attitude Accessibility in Brand Evaluation[J]. , 2007, 39(02): 355-361.
[5] Ban Yan,Wang Su. ATTENTIONAL CONTROL AND PERCEPTUAL GROUPING PROCESSES IN SHORT-TERM MEMORY[J]. , 2003, 35(03): 285-290.
[6] Wang Su Chen Sufen (Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing 100871). EFFECT OF DIVIDED ATTENTION AT DIFFERENT PHASE OF TASK ON THE INHIBITION OF RETURN[J]. , 2000, 32(04): 361-367.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech