title: The asymmetrical effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: a different view based on an interference with the episodic register.
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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Achva Academic College, Arugot, Israel ; Beer-Sheva Mental Health Center, Beer Sheva, Israel.
authors.forename: Jonathan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Guez
authors.forename: Moshe
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Naveh-Benjamin
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D011939:Mental Recall / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2000 Sep;28(6):965-76
references.pmid: 11105522
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):96-103
references.pmid: 12747495
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1982 Jan;8(1):66-72
references.pmid: 6210744
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Oct;31(7):1021-35
references.pmid: 14704017
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Sep;24(5):1091-104
references.pmid: 9747524
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Nov 1;4(11):417-423
references.pmid: 11058819
references.citation: Cogn Process. 2008 Mar;9(1):19-28
references.pmid: 17917753
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 1;49(1):1045-54
references.pmid: 19647800
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 Aug;53(3):609-25
references.pmid: 10994220
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Nov;26(6):1461-82
references.pmid: 11185777
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1973 Sep;1(3):347-55
references.pmid: 24214568
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2002 Jul;30(5):731-44
references.pmid: 12219890
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2009 Oct;37(7):953-61
references.pmid: 19744935
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Mar 15;91(6):2016-20
references.pmid: 8134342
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Apr 1;13(3):406-15
references.pmid: 11371316
references.citation: Neuroreport. 1995 Oct 2;6(14):1880-4
references.pmid: 8547589
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2006 Jan;34(1):90-101
references.pmid: 16686109
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Jun;129(2):155-76
references.pmid: 10868332
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Sep;21(5):1339-48
references.pmid: 8744967
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Jun;125(2):159-80
references.pmid: 8683192
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Oct;4(10):829-39
references.pmid: 14523382