Abstract
In this study, we evaluate the conceptualization of encoding and retrieval processes established in previous studies that used a divided attention (DA) paradigm. These studies indicated that there were considerable detrimental effects of DA at encoding on later memory performance, but only minimal effects, if any, on divided attention at retrieval. We suggest that this asymmetry in the effects of DA on memory can be due, at least partially, to a confound between the memory phase (encoding and retrieval) and the memory requirements of the task (memory “for” encoded information versus memory “at” test). To control for this confound, we tested memory for encoded information and for retrieved information by introducing a second test that assessed memory for the retrieved information from the first test. We report the results of four experiments that use measures of memory performance, retrieval latency, and performance on the concurrent task, all of which consistently show that DA at retrieval strongly disrupts later memory for the retrieved episode, similarly to the effects of DA at encoding. We suggest that these symmetrical disruptive effects of DA at encoding and retrieval on later retrieval reflect a disruption of an episodic buffer (EB) or episodic register component (ER), rather than a failure of encoding or retrieval operations per se.
Highlights
Much research over the past decade has investigated the similarities and the differences between encoding and retrieval
It is assumed to play an important role in feeding information into and retrieving information from episodic long term memory (LTM).’’ [19]. This notion of episodic buffer (EB), or what we suggest as an Episodic Register (ER), is independent from the nature of the process conducted by a subject either at encoding or retrieval
Further comparisons showed that remembering items from the encoding phase in the first test was significantly higher in the F-F-F condition (Mean 54.2) than in the divided attention (DA)-F-F condition (Mean 34.1), F(1,15) = 41.17; Mse = 78.9; p,0.01, replicating previous results showing a large detrimental effects of DA at encoding
Summary
Much research over the past decade has investigated the similarities and the differences between encoding and retrieval. There are well-known assumptions and theories regarding the idea that effective retrieval must reflect the specific manner in which the event was originally encoded. This notion clearly underlines the concepts of the encoding specificity principle [1], which states that items are encoded in a highly specific way, and that effective retrieval cues must reflect this specificity. The notion of a necessary overlap between encoding and retrieval is found within the proceduralist approach [2], and the transfer-appropriate processing approach [3]. Using varied manipulations (for example, resource allocation instructions) and secondary task costs, the overall conclusion has been that encoding is a more controlled process that competes with secondary task demands, and causes memory performance decreases. The basic asymmetry still remains (the effect of DA at retrieval is not as severe as that associated with DA at encoding; e.g. [12])
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
