FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2399504592> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2399504592 abstract "The level of processing affects the magnitude of induced retrograde amnesia Vencislav Popov (vencislav.popov@gmail.com) Georgi Petkov (gpetkov@cogs.nbu.bg) Central and East European Center for Cognitive Science, Department of Cognitive Science and Psychology, New Bulgarian University, 21 Montevideo Street Sofia 1618, Bulgaria Abstract Encoding disruption vs retrieval failures If a distinctive event is amid other, non-distinctive events, often the memory for the item that immediately precedes the distinctive one is severely impaired. One explanation is that memory for the preceding items is reduced because when the priority item is detected all attentional resources are directed to it and the encoding of the preceding item is prematurely disrupted. Because perceptually defined priority is detected earlier in time, compared to semantically defined priority, the encoding of the preceding item should be disrupted at an earlier stage, and the impairment should be greater. An experiment confirmed this prediction by showing that retrograde amnesia was present when participants had to preferentially remember the word written in capital letters (RABBIT), but not when the priority item was defined by being a kind of animal (rabbit). These results can explain the reason behind recent failed replications and they provide evidence for the encoding hypothesis. Keywords: induced retrograde amnesia, short-term memory, levels of processing, priority detection, encoding Introduction People have to remember a lot of lists throughout their daily lives – groceries, tasks, plans, and even names of people to invite to a party. Some items within those lists are deemed more important than others, and they are treated with priority. For example, it is much more pressing to invite your mother to a family gathering than a distant cousin, and when you are planning a trip, packing often takes priority over brushing your teeth. However, the preferential processing of such distinctive events is not without cost - memory for the item that precedes them in a list is often impaired (Tulving, 1969). This impairment, called by Tulving “retrograde amnesia in free recall”, is an adaptive constructive process that distorts memory as a byproduct of its otherwise efficient functioning (Schacter, 2012). The process is efficient because it directs additional attentional resources to important for memory items, but it is not yet clear why it impairs memory for the preceding item. Two major explanations have been put forward to explain induced retrograde amnesia. First, when the priority item is detected, all attentional resources could be directed to it, and as a result the rehearsal or the consolidation of the preceding item could be disrupted during its encoding (Tulving, 1969). An alternative explanation is that its retrieval could be inhibited by the retrieval of the priority item (Epstein, Ruggieri, & Schermerhorn, 1980). Retrograde amnesia in free recall was discovered by Tulving (1969), who asked participants to memorize lists of 15 words presented individually. One was a famous name (Aristotle, Columbus, etc.), while the rest were common nouns. Participants had to remember all words, but they had to remember the famous name with priority and to recall it first in the beginning of the retention test. When each word was presented for 0.5 or 1 sec., memory for the item that immediately preceded the famous name was significantly impaired. When the presentation rate was increased to 2 sec. per word, the effect disappeared. Because of this rate- sensitivity Tulving (1969) argued that encoding continues even after the item is physically removed, and that it is disrupted by the detection of the priority item to which all available attentional resources are directed. Support for the encoding hypothesis comes from several converging lines of research: (1) the effect is present only when each word is presented for less than 1 second (Tulving, 1969); (2) it was reproduced even when subjects did not begin recall with the famous name (Saufley Jr & Winograd, 1970); (3) memory for the preceding item was impaired even in forced-choice recognition tests (Schulz, 1971; Schulz & Straub, 1972); (4) but it was not impaired when participants evaluated the pleasantness of the items during memorization (Fisk & Wickens, 1979). If inhibited retrieval impairs memory, the impairment should have been present regardless of the presentation rate; it should have disappeared when the famous name was not recalled first; it should have disappeared on recognition tests, since retrieval cues were provided; it should have remained regardless of the type of task performed during encoding. The retrieval hypothesis is also supported by evidence which, supposedly, encoding-based mechanisms cannot explain. For example, some later studies argued that retrograde amnesia was, in fact, not rate-sensitive. They showed that critical for the effect was not the rate of item presentation, but the exposure time for the priority item (Detterman & Ellis, 1972). When stimuli were object drawings, and the priority item was a nude photo, retrograde amnesia appeared only for large exposure times for the nude photo (3 s), but not for small exposure times (0.5s), regardless of the presentation rate for the other items. The authors concluded that disruption cannot be due to encoding because attention was drawn away at the same time in both cases." @default.
• W2399504592 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2399504592 creator A5007373432 @default.
• W2399504592 creator A5085845631 @default.
• W2399504592 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2399504592 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2399504592 title "The level of processing affects the magnitude of induced retrograde amnesia" @default.
• W2399504592 cites W1963356639 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W1977518104 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W1978519304 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W1979112840 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2022297753 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2034308556 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2035371076 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2039236100 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2052304485 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2055900812 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2116377014 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2120388393 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2122896223 @default.
• W2399504592 cites W2413404815 @default.
• W2399504592 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2399504592 type Work @default.
• W2399504592 sameAs 2399504592 @default.
• W2399504592 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2399504592 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2399504592 hasAuthorship W2399504592A5007373432 @default.
• W2399504592 hasAuthorship W2399504592A5085845631 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C125411270 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C2778615406 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C2779142347 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C2780343019 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C125411270 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C138885662 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C15744967 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C169760540 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C169900460 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C180747234 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C2778615406 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C2779142347 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C2780343019 @default.
• W2399504592 hasConceptScore W2399504592C41895202 @default.
• W2399504592 hasIssue "36" @default.
• W2399504592 hasLocation W23995045921 @default.
• W2399504592 hasOpenAccess W2399504592 @default.
• W2399504592 hasPrimaryLocation W23995045921 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W1996516185 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2004883229 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2011968496 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2028100076 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2032259170 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2061511149 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W20949032 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2148496802 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2319305615 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2777815896 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2801515763 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2806371618 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2918558635 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2951147718 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2997680383 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W3036586602 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W3107356388 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W3118459789 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W3213935302 @default.
• W2399504592 hasRelatedWork W2586119583 @default.
• W2399504592 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W2399504592 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2399504592 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2399504592 magId "2399504592" @default.
• W2399504592 workType "article" @default.