Production benefits on encoding are modulated by language experience: Less experience may help
-
Published:2024-04-15
Issue:4
Volume:52
Page:926-943
-
ISSN:0090-502X
-
Container-title:Memory & Cognition
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Mem Cogn
Author:
Brown Rachel M.ORCID, Roembke Tanja C.
Abstract
AbstractSeveral lines of research have shown that performing movements while learning new information aids later retention of that information, compared to learning by perception alone. For instance, articulated words are more accurately remembered than words that are silently read (the production effect). A candidate mechanism for this movement-enhanced encoding, sensorimotor prediction, assumes that acquired sensorimotor associations enable movements to prime associated percepts and hence improve encoding. Yet it is still unknown how the extent of prior sensorimotor experience influences the benefits of movement on encoding. The current study addressed this question by examining whether the production effect is modified by prior language experience. Does the production effect reduce or persist in a second language (L2) compared to a first language (L1)? Two groups of unbalanced bilinguals, German (L1) – English (L2) bilinguals (Experiment 1) and English (L1) – German (L2) bilinguals (Experiment 2), learned lists of German and English words by reading the words silently or reading the words aloud, and they subsequently performed recognition tests. Both groups showed a pronounced production effect (higher recognition accuracy for spoken compared to silently read words) in the first and second languages. Surprisingly, the production effect was greater in the second languages compared to the first languages, across both bilingual groups. We discuss interpretations based on increased phonological encoding, increased effort or attention, or both, when reading aloud in a second language.
Funder
RWTH Aachen University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference61 articles.
1. Allen, R. J., Hill, L. J. B., Eddy, L. H., & Waterman, A. H. (2020). Exploring the effects of demonstration and enactment in facilitating recall of instructions in working memory. Memory and Cognition, 48(3), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00978-6 2. Bailey, L. M., Bodner, G. E., Matheson, H. E., Stewart, B. M., Roddick, K., O’Neil, K., Simmons, M., Lambert, A. M., Krigolson, O. E., Newman, A. J., & Fawcett, J. M. (2021). Neural correlates of the production effect: An fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 152, 105757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105757 3. Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.005 4. Barbeau, E. B., Chai, X. J., Chen, J.-K., Soles, J., Berken, J., Baum, S., Watkins, K. E., & Klein, D. (2017). The role of the left inferior parietal lobule in second language learning: An intensive language training fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 98, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.003 5. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
|
|