2010), which would be more useful in encoding word pairs that require semantic knowledge (i.e., categories, synonyms, opposites, and associates) than phonetic knowledge (i.e., rhymes). Madan et al. (2010) found that word pairs of high “imageability,” or a greater extent to which one is able to mentally picture an object, resulted
in increased memory of associations more than memory of individual items. Subjects had improved memory for associated pairs than for separate Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical items when words were characterized by high imageability. The current study employed related word pairs, and therefore, memory of these pairs could have benefited from the ability to image the association. It is plausible, therefore, that differences in memory performance between the linguistic relationships can Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical be related to the imagery
of those word pairs presented within them. Memory performance was not statistically different between read and generate conditions when a rhyming linguistic relationship was used. This illustrates that verbal self-generation may not universally improve memory compared with passively reading words, and that linguistic Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical relationship plays a role in effective memory formation. That rhyming was the linguistic relationship demonstrating least differences between the read and generate conditions is inconsistent with previous findings in which epilepsy patients demonstrated improved memory performance for generated words of a rhyming relationship when compared with categories, synonyms, opposites, and association (Schefft et al. 2008b). This could be explained by difference in populations. As the current study Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical employed neurologically intact subjects, the study by Schefft et al. (2008a,b) enrolled epilepsy patients who usually present with increased memory complaints when compared with healthy population (Kent et al. 2006; Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Black et al. 2010), and thus, these subjects may benefit more from memory 3-MA purchase improvement exercise. Another explanation
may be that different linguistic relationships may be more effective for recognition memory in different study populations (Eliassen et al. 2008). Another study found that healthy individuals better remembered words they self-generated than passively read from all five linguistic relationships (Slamecka and Graf 1978), whereas heptaminol the current study found these results in all of the relationships except rhyme. However, the former study enrolled a small number of subjects who were informed on the linguistic relationship being administered for each word pair and presented word pairs blocked by that relationship, whereas the current study presented word pairs in random order without informing which relationship was being employed. Presenting word pairs according to linguistic relationship could have cued subjects to encode and remember words differently, which could account for the recognition differences.
Related posts:
- Twenty volunteers participated in Experiment
1, and 16 in - Problem solving involves the perception of a problem, the generat
- Response bias has been demonstrated to adapt to all four types of
- 4,18 Also, normal aging is accompanied by alterations in neuronal
- 94-97 TABLE II Linkage results (P values) for bipolar disorder a