Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Why is retrieval expensive?: An analysis of component-processes / Vranić, Andrea ; Tonković, Mirjana.

By: Vranić, Andrea.
Contributor(s): Tonković, Mirjana psihologinja [aut].
Material type: ArticleArticleDescription: 177-177 str.Other title: Why is retrieval expensive?: An analysis of component-processes [Naslov na engleskom:].Subject(s): 5.06 | retrieval, attentional cost, transfer appropriate processing hrv | retrieval, attentional cost, transfer appropriate processing engOnline resources: Elektronička verzija sažetka In: 17th meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (29.9.-2.10.2011. ; San Sebastian) Proceedings of the 17th meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology str. 177-177Summary: Research shows that division of attention during retrieval affects memory performance only minimally. This relative immunity of episodic retrieval is offset by a cost, as measured by the concurrent secondary task in a divided attention paradigm. This experiment was conducted with the aim of further exploring this relative immunity and the attentional costs associated with what seems to be obligatory retrieval processes. More specifically, we aimed at exploring the attentional cost associated with each of three retrieval component-processes: 1) cue-encoding, 2) cue elaboration, 3) retrieval mode (Tulving, 1983). A componential analysis, as introduced by Naveh-Benjamin et al. (2000), was employed to assess attentional demands of four different retrieval tasks: two tapping the episodic and two tapping the semantic memory system. Furthermore, within each of these „system tasks“, one task was data-driven and one was conceptually-driven, as proposed by the transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) approach. Our results show a similar pattern of attentional costs of the three retrieval component-processes, across various types of retrieval. The cue elaboration was found to be the most attention demanding of the three component-processes, and also this process was shown to demand significantly more attention in the non-TAP situation. These findings are interpreted within the TAP framework.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
No physical items for this record

Research shows that division of attention during retrieval affects memory performance only minimally. This relative immunity of episodic retrieval is offset by a cost, as measured by the concurrent secondary task in a divided attention paradigm. This experiment was conducted with the aim of further exploring this relative immunity and the attentional costs associated with what seems to be obligatory retrieval processes. More specifically, we aimed at exploring the attentional cost associated with each of three retrieval component-processes: 1) cue-encoding, 2) cue elaboration, 3) retrieval mode (Tulving, 1983). A componential analysis, as introduced by Naveh-Benjamin et al. (2000), was employed to assess attentional demands of four different retrieval tasks: two tapping the episodic and two tapping the semantic memory system. Furthermore, within each of these „system tasks“, one task was data-driven and one was conceptually-driven, as proposed by the transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) approach. Our results show a similar pattern of attentional costs of the three retrieval component-processes, across various types of retrieval. The cue elaboration was found to be the most attention demanding of the three component-processes, and also this process was shown to demand significantly more attention in the non-TAP situation. These findings are interpreted within the TAP framework.

Projekt MZOS 130-0000000-3295

Projekt MZOS 130-1301683-1417

ENG

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Powered by Koha

//