Attentional boost effect in conceptual implicit memory

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00469

Abstract

Abstract:

Attentional Boost Effect (ABE) was first defined bySwallow and Jiang (2010) who discovered that target detection in the encoding phase promotes the performance of concurrently presented background information in subsequent retrieval. It has been found that ABE does not appear in the conceptual implicit test which suggests that target detection mainly promotes the perceptual processing of background information, rather than semantic processing. This study manipulated the types of encoding processing of background information (perceptual processing or conceptual processing) through three experiments. It was found that ABE appeared in subsequent implicit conceptual tests when the background information was processed conceptually at the same time as target detection. Conversely, ABE appeared in the subsequent perceptual implicit test rather than conceptual implicit test when perceptual processing was performed on the background information. These results showed that target detection can promote both perceptual processing and semantic processing of background information, but ABE would be produced only when the encoding process of background information under target detection was consistent with the retrieval process that subsequent implicit tests relied on.

Key words: attentional boost effect, implicit memory, conceptual processing, perceptual processing

MENG Yingfang, DONG Yueqing, CHEN Quan. (2021). Attentional boost effect in conceptual implicit memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(5), 469-480.

Figures/Tables 6

References 36

[1]	Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100(4), 589-608.
[2]	Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204-256. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204 URL pmid: 11212628
[3]	Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. Psychological Review, 87(3), 272-300. URL pmid: 7384344
[4]	Frankland, P. W., Josselyn, S. A., & Kohler, S. (2019). The neurobiological foundation of memory retrieval. Nature Neuroscience, 22(10), 1576-1585. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0493-1 URL pmid: 31551594
[5]	Hamilton, M., & Geraci, L. (2006). The picture superiority effect in conceptual implicit memory: A conceptual distinctiveness hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 119(1), 1-20.
[6]	Hu, C. P., Kong, X. Z., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ly, A., & Peng, K. P. (2018). The bayes factor and its implementation in JASP: A practical primer. Journal of Psychological Science, 26(6), 951-965.
[7]	Jiang, Y. V., & Swallow, K. M. (2014). Temporal yoking in continuous multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 40(6), 2348-2360. doi: 10.1037/a0038286 URL pmid: 25365568
[8]	Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[9]	Josselyn, S. A., & Tonegawa, S. (2020). Memory engrams: Recalling the past and imagining the future. Science, 367(6473). doi: 10.1126/ science. aaw4325. URL pmid: 31896701
[10]	Kinchla, R. A (1992). Attention. Annual Review Of Psychology, 43(1), 711-742.
[11]	Meng, Y. F., & Lin, H. R. (2018). Attentional boost effect: New insights on relationship between attention and memory. Advance of Psychological Science, 26(2), 221— 228.
[12]	Mulligan, N. W. (2002). Attention and perceptual implicit memory: Effects of selective versus divided attention and number of visual objects. Psychological Research-psychologische forschung, 66(3), 157-165.
[13]	Mulligan, N. W. (2003). Effects of cross-modal and intramodal division of attention on perceptual implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29(2), 262-276.
[14]	Mulligan, N. W., Duke, M., & Cooper, A. W. (2007). The effects of divided attention on auditory priming. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1245-1254. doi: 10.3758/bf03193598 URL pmid: 18035624
[15]	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.
[16]	Newell, B. R., Cavenett, T., & Andrews, S. (2008). On the immunity of perceptual implicit memory to manipulations of attention. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 725-734. doi: 10.3758/mc.36.4.725 URL pmid: 18604956
[17]	Parks, C. M. (2013). Transfer-appropriate processing in recognition memory: Perceptual and conceptual effects on recognition memory depend on task demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(4), 1280-1286.
[18]	Pohlmann, L. D., & Sorkin, R. D. (1976). Simultaneous three-channel signal detection: Performance and criterion as a function of order of report. Perception & Psychophysics, 20(3), 179-186.
[19]	Schwan, S., & Garsoffky, B. (2004). The cognitive representation of filmic event summaries. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 37-55.
[20]	Seidenberg, M. S., & Mcclelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523-568. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.523 URL pmid: 2798649
[21]	Smith, E. E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2017). Cognitive psychology: Mind and brain (N. Y. Wang, & Y. J. Luo, Trans.). Education press. (Original work published 2008)
[22]	Spataro, P., Mulligan, N. W., Gabrielli, G. B., & Rossi-Arnaud, C. (2017). Divided attention enhances explicit but not implicit conceptual memory: An item-specific account of the attentional boost effect. Memory, 25(2), 170-175. URL pmid: 26881481
[23]	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.
[24]	Staudigl, T., & Hanslmayr, S. (2019). Reactivation of neural patterns during memory reinstatement supports encoding specificity. Cognitive Neuroscience, 10( 4), 175-185. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2019.1574260 URL pmid: 30676265
[25]	Stefan, A. M., Gronau, Q. F., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). A tutorial on Bayes factor design analysis using an informed prior. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi:10.3758/s13428-018-01189-8 doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01567-9 URL pmid: 33694080
[26]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.003 URL pmid: 20080232
[27]	Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2011). The role of timing in the attentional boost effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2), 389-404.
[28]	Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2012). Goal-relevant events need not be rare to boost memory for concurrent images. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 70-82.
[29]	Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2013). Attentional load and attentional boost: A review of data and theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 274. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00274 URL pmid: 23730294
[30]	Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2014). Perceptual load and attentional boost: A study of their interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 1034-1045. doi: 10.1037/a0035312 URL pmid: 24364707
[31]	Swallow, K. M., Jiang, Y. V., & Riley, E. (2019). Target detection increases pupil diameter and enhances memory for background scenes during multi-tasking. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 5255. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41658-4 URL pmid: 30918293
[32]	Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 381-391.
[33]	Vaidya, C. J., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Keane, M. M., Monti, L. A., Gutierrez- Rivas, H., & Zarella, M. (1997). Evidence for multiple mechanisms of conceptual priming on implicit memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(6), 1324-1343. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.23.6.1324 URL
[34]	Vandenberghe, R., Price, C., Wise, R., Josephs, O., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1996). Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature, 383(6597), 254-256. doi: 10.1038/383254a0 URL pmid: 8805700
[35]	Wagenmakers, E. J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., … Morey, R. D. (2017). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 58-76. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7 URL pmid: 28685272
[36]	Yang, Y, F. (2015). Psycholinguistics. Science Press, China.

Test type	Focus conditions			Distraction conditions
Test type	Old words	New words	Priming amount	Target old words	Distraction old words	New words	Target priming amount	Distraction priming amount
Perceptual implicit test	634 ± 82	673 ± 92	39^***	616 ± 71	630 ± 83	666 ± 82	50^***	36^***
Concept implicit test	614 ± 84	635 ± 103	21^*	578 ± 68	580 ± 72	584 ± 78	5	4

Test type	Focus conditions			Distraction conditions
Test type	Old words	New words	Priming amount	Target old words	Distraction old words	New words	Target priming amount	Distraction priming amount
Perceptual implicit test	634 ± 82	673 ± 92	39^***	616 ± 71	630 ± 83	666 ± 82	50^***	36^***
Concept implicit test	614 ± 84	635 ± 103	21^*	578 ± 68	580 ± 72	584 ± 78	5	4

Encoding Type	Focus conditions			Distraction conditions
Encoding Type	Old words	New words	priming amount	Target old words	Distraction old words	New words	Target priming amount	Distraction priming amount
Perceptual coding	641 ± 110	661 ± 102	20^*	633 ± 99	623 ± 51	623 ± 83	-10	0
Concept coding	635 ± 85	663 ± 102	28^***	604 ± 67	626 ± 81	636 ± 77	32^***	10

Encoding Type	Focus conditions			Distraction conditions
Encoding Type	Old words	New words	priming amount	Target old words	Distraction old words	New words	Target priming amount	Distraction priming amount
Perceptual coding	641 ± 110	661 ± 102	20^*	633 ± 99	623 ± 51	623 ± 83	-10	0
Concept coding	635 ± 85	663 ± 102	28^***	604 ± 67	626 ± 81	636 ± 77	32^***	10

Encoding Type	Focus conditions			Distraction conditions
Encoding Type	Old words	New words	priming amount	Target old words	Distraction old words	New words	Target priming amount	Distraction priming amount
Perceptual coding	674 ± 105	756 ± 167	83^***	638 ± 76	638 ± 73	688 ± 101	50^***	49^***
Concept coding	712 ± 116	803 ± 171	91^***	650 ± 87	686 ± 107	694 ± 104	43^***	9