Department of Linguistics, Institut für Sprache und Information, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2013 Oct 18;4:764. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764. eCollection 2013.
In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval.
在自由回忆的列表学习范式中,当列表项以视觉呈现时,与口语回忆相比,书面回忆较少受到相关概念的干扰。这种效应归因于在书面回忆中使用来自学习阶段的存储的正字法表示(Kellogg,2001)。相比之下,在其他记忆检索范式中,已经发现了更好的模态一致项目的回忆或与输入无关的写作优势效应(Grabowski,2005)。在一系列使用配对联想学习范式的四项实验中,我们测试了(a)在不涉及拒绝语义相关干扰词的范式中,是否可以复制对口头回忆的输出模态效应,(b)对于书面回忆可能更好的表现是否是由于与说话相比,写作的反应起始较慢,以及(c)在配对联想词回忆中的表现是否与额外的情节记忆回忆任务中的表现相关。我们观察到在回忆阶段的前半段,无论材料在编码时以何种模态呈现,书面回忆都更好。可以通过证明该效果在任务的延迟响应版本中持续存在来排除这种效果基于写作的响应延迟较长且因此有更多时间进行记忆检索的解释。尽管有一些证据表明存储的额外情节信息可能有助于成功检索联想词,但这些证据仅在即时响应实验中发现,因此很可能与观察到的输出模态效应无关。总之,我们从配对联想学习范式中得到的结果表明,书面回忆优于口语回忆的表现不能(仅)用来自编码阶段的存储正字法表示的额外访问来解释。我们的发现更倾向于在记忆检索时的一般写作优势效应。