Automatic Semantic Encoding in Verbal Short-Term Memory: Evidence from the Concreteness Effect
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015 Vol. 68, No. 4, 759–778, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.966248 Automatic semantic encoding in verbal short-term memory: Evidence from the concreteness effect Guillermo Campoy1, Judit Castellà2, Violeta Provencio1, Graham J. Hitch3, and Alan D. Baddeley3 1Faculty of Psychology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain 2Faculty of Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 3Department of Psychology, University of York, York, UK The concreteness effect in verbal short-term memory (STM) tasks is assumed to be a consequence of semantic encoding in STM, with immediate recall of concrete words benefiting from richer semantic representations. We used the concreteness effect to test the hypothesis that semantic encoding in stan- dard verbal STM tasks is a consequence of controlled, attention-demanding mechanisms of strategic semantic retrieval and encoding. Experiment 1 analysed the effect of presentation rate, with slow pre- sentations being assumed to benefit strategic, time-dependent semantic encoding. Experiments 2 and 3 provided a more direct test of the strategic hypothesis by introducing three different concurrent atten- tion-demanding tasks. Although Experiment 1 showed a larger concreteness effect with slow presenta- tions, the following two experiments yielded strong evidence against the strategic hypothesis. Limiting available attention resources by concurrent tasks reduced global memory performance, but the concre- teness effect was equivalent to that found in control conditions. We conclude that semantic effects in STM result from automatic semantic encoding and provide tentative explanations for the interaction between the concreteness effect and the presentation rate. Keywords: Verbal short-term memory; Concreteness effect; Immediate serial recall; Presentation rate; Dual task paradigm. Studies of verbal short-term memory (STM) on some kind of phonological representations of usually involve the immediate serial recall of lists the stimuli (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). of unrelated words or letters. Memory performance The observation of a number of nonphonologi- in these situations has been found to be highly cal effects in verbal STM tasks, however, suggests affected by the phonological properties of the to- the participation of factors beyond the mere main- be-remembered stimuli, as occurs in the similarity tenance of phonological traces. Some of these effect (Conrad & Hull, 1964) and in the word operate at the level of the individual item. These length effect (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, include the lexicality effect (better immediate recall 1975). As a consequence, it has been traditionally of words than nonwords; Hulme, Maughan, & assumed that verbal information is phonologically Brown, 1991) and the frequency effect (better encoded in STM, with participants’ recall relying immediate recall of high-frequency words than Correspondence should be addressed to Guillermo Campoy, Universidad de Murcia, Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Espinardo, 30100, Murcia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [Projects PSI2009-07374 and CSD2008- 00048]. © 2014 The Experimental Psychology Society 759 CAMPOY ET AL. low-frequency words; Hulme et al., 1997). There is rely on both phonological and semantic encoding. also abundant evidence that verbal STM may be Phonological encoding is rapid and attentionally influenced by semantic factors (Campoy & undemanding, but phonological traces are fragile Baddeley, 2008; Haarmann & Usher, 2001; and readily forgotten. In contrast, semantic encod- Martin, 2005; Poirier & Saint-Aubin, 1995; ing in standard tasks (i.e., immediate serial recall of Walker & Hulme, 1999). A crucial finding sup- unrelated words) is harder and takes longer to set porting the participation of semantic codes in up, but traces are more durable. STM is the concreteness effect, the observation that The idea that semantic encoding in standard immediate serial recall is better for concrete, STM tasks takes longer to be set up is congruent high-imageability words such as pencil than for with an early proposal by Shulman (1970, 1971, abstract, low-imageability words like method 1972). According to Shulman, both phonological (Walker & Hulme, 1999). This effect is assumed and semantic encoding are possible in verbal to be a direct consequence of the participation of STM tasks, but they have different temporal semantic codes in STM tasks, with concrete courses. In standard STM tasks, participants tend words benefiting from richer and more distinctive to encode information phonologically rather than semantic representations (Acheson, Postle, & semantically because phonological encoding is MacDonald, 2010; Allen & Hulme, 2006; faster and thus more appropriate under the tem- Romani, McAlpine, Martin, 2008; Walker & poral pressure of relatively high presentation rates. Hulme, 1999). A direct prediction of Shulman’s hypothesis is Although the participation of semantic traces in that semantic encoding in STM would benefit verbal STM tasks has only been broadly recognized from slower presentation rates. To test this predic- recently, early evidence was already reported in the tion, Shulman (1970) analysed the effect of presen- sixties and early seventies by Baddeley and co- tation rate in a probe-recognition task. Each trial workers (Baddeley, 1966; Baddeley & Ecob, involved the presentation of a list of words (at a 1970; Baddeley & Levy, 1971). However, this evi- presentation rate of a word every 350, 700, or dence was later overshadowed by extensive data 1400 ms) followed by an instructing cue and a rec- supporting the main role of phonological coding. ognition probe. The instructing cue indicated the Baddeley (1966) examined the immediate serial kind of response that was required in each particu- recall of lists of five similar and dissimilar words, lar trial. When the cue was the letter H, partici- with similarity being either phonological (e.g., pants had to indicate whether the probe was a man, mat, map) or semantic (e.g., huge, big, wide). homonym of any word in the list (homonym- He found a large effect of phonological similarity probe condition); when the cue was the letter M, (the standard similarity effect), but also a small participants had to indicate whether the probe though significant effect of semantic similarity, had the same meaning as any presented word suggesting the participation of semantic codes. (semantic-probe condition); finally, when the cue Likewise, a subsequent study by Baddeley and was the letter I, participants had to indicate Levy (1971) found effects of semantic similarity whether the probe was identical to any of the list in immediate serial recall of noun–adjective pairs, words (identical-probe condition). Results showed provided the pairs were semantically compatible that recognition of semantic probes improved (e.g., priest–devout). In another study using seman- with slower presentation rates, whereas a contrary tically compatible or incompatible triplets (e.g., my tendency was found in the homonym and identical fine wine vs. wine my fine), Baddeley and Ecob conditions. Shulman interpreted this as supporting (1970) found effects of both phonological and his claim that semantic encoding in STM is time semantic similarity, with the effects of semantic dependent and, thus, benefits from slower presen- similarity predominating after a delay. In a recent tation. The procedure in this study, however, review of this early evidence, Baddeley (2012) con- makes strong conclusions difficult. On the one cludes that performance in verbal STM tasks may hand, it seems probable that the task itself 760 THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 68 (4) AUTOMATIC SEMANTIC ENCODING induced semantic encoding, since participants semantic STM deficits in this kind of patient knew in advance that they could be prompted to could be a consequence of the disruption in mech- respond on the basis of meaning. This fact could anisms of control of semantic retrieval (Hoffman, lead to some forms of controlled semantic proces- Jefferies, & Lambon Ralph, 2011), consistent sing that are not present in standard situations. with the view that semantic encoding in STM On the other hand, word lists in Shulman’s exper- tasks relies on controlled processes. iments involved 10 words, which exceeds the A further step involving the participation of capacity of STM (Cowan, 2005). This fact raises controlled mechanisms in verbal STM tasks is the the question of to what extent his results are repre- possibility that participants engage in elaborative sentative of STM performance. strategies of semantic encoding in order to In light of the recent interest in semantic encod- improve their performance. Such semantic strat- ing in STM, the idea that presentation rate in STM egies could involve, for example, the establishment tasks determines semantic encoding deserves of semantic links between words and the generation renewed attention. If semantic encoding in STM of stories or visual scenes. Evidence for the impor- tasks benefits from a slower presentation rate, this tance of these strategies of elaborative encoding could suggest the participation of mechanisms emerges from studies showing that the adoption that go beyond the mere automatic activation of of this kind of semantic strategy can eliminate pho- semantic information. Research on the retrieval of nological effects usually considered the hallmark