Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.5, 460-471
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.25072
Employment of a Multi-measure Approach as a Vehicle for
Monitoring Encoding and Retrieval Dynamics: The Case of
Semantically Related Words
Jonathan Guez1, Moshe Naveh-Benjamin2
1Department of Behavioral Sciences, Achva Academic College, Achva, Israel;
2Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, U.S.A.
Email: jonjon@bgu.ac.il
Received April 18th, 2011; revised May 26th, 2011; accepted July 1st, 2011.
Several recent studies have indicated that retrieval, unlike encoding, is only minimally affected by dividing at-
tention, but is associated with significant secondary task costs. The reported experiment manipulated the
strength of pre-experimental semantic associations, using a cued-recall paradigm and a multi-measure approach.
This allowed the assessment of accuracy and latency of retrievals, as well as of overall attentional costs and the
temporal distribution of attentional costs incurred by these retrievals. By simultaneously inspecting the different
measures, we identified a common set of retrieval types and retrieval components. The results presented differ-
ent patterns for semantically related or un-related words under full or divided attention as a function of the de-
pendent measure used. The results emphasize the advantage of using multi-measure approach to the uncovering
of different properties of cognitive processes .
Keywords: Divided Attention, E nco di n g , Retrieval, Semantic Relationships
Introduction
Earlier research on human memory suggested that the
similarity between encoding and retrieval processes is an
important factor in successful remembering. These lines of
research include the encoding specificity principle (Tulving
& Thompson, 1973; Tulving, 1983), the transfer-appropriate
processing view (Morris, Bransford & Franks, 1977; Roedi-
ger, 1990; Roediger et al., 2002), and the proceduralist view
of mind (Kolers, 1973); all carry the notion of a necessary
overlap between encoding and retrieval processes and imply
that experimental manipulations should have similar effects
on encoding and retrieval. Neuroscientists (e.g., Danker &
Anderson, 2010; Mishkin & Appenzeller, 1987; Moscovitch,
1992; Squire, 1992), have also suggested that the same neural
pathways mediate the perceptual processing of stimuli and
their storage and retrieval. In contrast, recent research using
the divided attention (DA) paradigm has shown single disso-
ciation between encoding and retrieval processes. When par-
ticipants’ attention is divided between encoding and a sec-
ondary task, memory performance is reduce compared to
conditions when they pay full attention to encoding the items
(e.g., Baddeley, Lewis, Eldrige & Thomson, 1984; Craik,
Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Naveh-Ben-
jamin, Craik & Guez, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik,
Gavrilescu & Anderson, 2000; Naveh-Benjamin & Guez,
2000). These results indicate that encoding processes require
attention and that the allocation of attention to encoding
processes is under the participant’s conscious control. The
reported effects of divided attention on retrieval processes
are different. Participants in Baddeley et al. (1984), Craik et
al. (1996), Naveh-Benjamin et al., (1998), Naveh-Benjamin,
Craik, Perretta & Tonev (2000), Naveh-Benjamin & Guez
(2000), showed only small decreases in free recall, cued re-
call, and recognition performance, when attention was di-
vided at retrieval. This relative immunity of memory to di-
vided attention at retrieval was shown by Craik et al. (1996),
and Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000), and Naveh-Benjamin
et al. (2000) to be accompanied by substantial secondary task
reaction time costs which decreased from free recall to cued
recall to recognition (see also Griffith, 1976; Johnston,
Greenberg, Fisher, & Martin, 1970; Johnston, Griffith &
Wagstaff, 1972). Furthermore, instructing the participants to
emphasize the memory task, the secondary task, or both
equally had no effect under DA at retrieval, but had a com-
plementary effects on the two tasks under DA at encoding.
As attention is switched to the secondary task and away from
the memory task, memory performance declines and secon-
dary task performance improves. Craik et al. and Naveh-
Benjamin et al. therefore suggested that retrieval processes
are in some sense obligatory, or protected, but that their
execution requires substantial resources, as shown by the
large secondary task costs. By contrast, encoding processes
require attention but that allocation of attention to encoding
processes is under the participant’s conscious control. In a
recent studies by us (Naveh-Benjamin & Guez, 2000 and
Guez & Naveh-Benjamin, 2006), we employed a cued-recall
task which allows the division of attentional resources re-
quired at retrieval into three retrieval phases or subcompo-
nents: cue encoding, cue-elaboration/search processes for a
specific word, and the operation of a retrieval mode. This
was achieved by dividing each retrieval interval into three
phases (partially based on Tulving’s, 1983 taxonomy of re-
trieval sub-processes) and evaluating the gradient of attention
J. GUEZ ET AL. 461
required with each. The first phase includes the period until
the end of the presentation of the cue, which presumably
mostly consists of cue-encoding operations. The second
phase, which consists of cue-elaboration/search processes,
extends from the point at which a given cue is provided to the
participant, until s/he furnishes a retrieved response. The
demand for resources associated with cue-elaboration/search
processes was differentiated from consumption of resources
by a retrieval mode which can be evaluated during the period
following a retrieval and before the next cue is presented.
During this period, the participants are in a cognitive mode of
retrieval readiness without a specific cue directing them to
search for a particular target. For comparison purposes, the
same time periods were designated to encoding. Participants’
performance on the secondary tracking tasks gave us the
precise micro-level measurement of those resources devoted
to encoding and retrieval every 20 ms. The results of both
researches reported by Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000) and
Guez & Naveh-Benjamin (2006) indicate that retrieval, at
least during a cued-recall task, does not require uniform at-
tentional resources. The first phase of cue-encoding requires
some resources, much like the requirement for resources by
stimuli detection at encoding. The second phase, involving
cue-elaboration/search processes requires substantial re-
sources for its execution. This was shown in two ways. First,
for successful retrievals, the period after the cue-encoding
and prior to the retrieved response was associated with
poorer performance on the secondary task (larger tracking
distance), than either the respective period at encoding or the
retrieval period following the retrieval response. Second, the
use of a cued-recall task allowed us to measure attentional
resources associated with both successful and unsuccessful
retrievals. Performance on the secondary task for unsuccess-
ful retrievals (where no retrieved response was provided by
the participant) was poor throughout the retrieval period of a
given target. Specifically, while unsuccessful retrievals con-
sume attentional resources for their execution as successful
retrievals do up to the point of the retrieved response, these
unsuccessful retrievals continue to require resources for the
whole retrieval period, presumably reflecting the continua-
tion of cue elaboration/search processes.
Aims of the Current Study
One purpose of the current study was to replicate and
consolidate the above results reported by Naveh-Benjamin &
Guez (2000) and Guez & Naveh-Benjamin (2006), since
these are the only studies in the literature to report about
attentional costs associated with specific sub-processes at
retrieval. A second purpose was to extend the Naveh-Ben-
jamin & Guez’ results. In particular, one interesting question
is whether strengthening the encoded trace by the use of ei-
ther semantic information will similarly affect the attentional
costs associated with cue-elaboration/search process. Third,
we wish to advocate the use of a multimeasure approach. In
the current study, we used four measures of performance:
memory accuracy, retrieval latency, overall attentional costs,
and the temporal distribution of attentional costs. We believe
that such an approach, the usefulness of which was demon-
strated here, provides a more comprehensive perspective on
the phenomenon under investigation.The claim that episodic
retrieval is mediated and helped by semantic knowledge has
been advocated time and again in the memory research (e.g.,
Herrmann & McLaughlin, 1 974; Bransf ord & John son, 1972;
Naveh-Benjamin, Craik & Ben-Shaul, 2002). If this is the
case, we expect that giving the participant a cue which is
semantically related to the target, should enhance and help
both the success of the search for the target as well as the
ease in which this search is conducted. While previous re-
search has shown that retrieval success is facilitated by se-
mantic relatedness, very few studies to date have dealt with
ease of access and no study has assessed the amount of atten-
tional resources required for such access. In the few studies
that assessed the ease of access (e.g., Dosher, 1984; Dosher
& Rosedale, 1991) a speed-accuracy tradeoff paradigm was
used. These studies indicate that the pre-experimental (se-
mantic) relationships between pairs of items can be used in
addition to experimental (episodic) relationships, to enhance
(speed up) the rate of retrieval of associative information. In
the reported experiment, we manipulated the semantic relat-
edness of the cue-target pairs. We expected that related pairs
would be retrieved faster and would also require fewer atten-
tional resources, as participants can use their pre-experi-
mental knowledge to access the target given the cue. Such a
pattern should be especially noticeable during the cue-
elaboration/search phase. More specifically, several issues
were investigated with the purpose of extending the results
reported by Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000) and Guez &
Naveh-Benjamin (2006) regarding the identifications of dif-
ferent types of retrievals. First, we wanted to validate the
different patterns of attentional costs associated with suc-
cessful and unsuccessful retrievals. As mentioned above, the
authors showed that whereas both types of retrievals require
the same amount of attentional resources for the execution of
the cue-encoding and the cue-elaboration/search phases, the
pattern of their attentional cost subsequently diverges: while
successful retrievals (where the retrieval response terminates
the cue-elaboration/search phase), are associated with fewer
attentional resources, unsuccessful retrievals (where the cue-
elaboration/search phase proceeds until the next cue is pre-
sented) are associated with continuous high attentional costs.
Using manipulations of pair-relatedness we wanted to evalu-
ate the robustness of the differential pattern of attentional
costs associated with successful and unsuccessful retrievals.
In this context we may assessed whether successful retrievals
would be less costly in terms of attentional resources if a
presented cue is semantically pre-experimentally related to
the target, or whether it would only affect retrieval success
(increase the proportion of such retrievals).
Another goal of the current research was to evaluate the
existence of different types of successful retrievals. Naveh-
Benjamin & Guez (2000) and Guez & Naveh-Benjamin
(2006) used a measure of retrieval latency to distinguish
between two types of retrievals, and estimated the attentional
resources associated with each. The results of their experi-
ments indicated that these two types of retrievals require
different amount of resources for their execution. One type,
tentatively defined as strategic or algorithmic (see Guynn &
McDaniel, 1999; Logan, 1988), characterized by slow re-
trievals, was associated with substantial attentional resources
for their execution, especially during the cue-elaboration/
J. GUEZ ET AL.
462
search phase. The other type, tentatively defined as one-step
or direct (see Guynn & McDaniel, 1999; Logan, 1988), was
characterized by fast retrievals (measured by a retrieval re-
sponse within less than 1 safter the cue was presented). This
type, comprised about 25% of all successful retrievals, re-
quired fewer resources for their execution, and in particular
did not seem to show an increase in required attentional re-
sources during the cue-elaboration/search phase. One inter-
pretation of these results is that the one-step fast retrievals
bypass cue-elaboration/search processes. Such a suggestion,
which posits the operation of two qualitatively different types
of successful retrievals—one which is fast and requires few
attentional resources for its completion (one-step), and an-
other which is slower and requires substantial resources
(strategic) -- is in line with several suggestions in the litera-
ture. These suggestions depict the retrieval process as vari-
able with different retrievals being based on different
mechanisms: for example, Jacoby’s distinction of familiarity
and recollection (Jacoby, 1991), Gardiner’s distinction be-
tween know and remember responses (Gardiner & Java,
1993), and Logan’s distinction between one step and algo-
rithmic retrievals (Logan, 1988; see also Tzelgov, Yehene &
Naveh-Benjamin, 1997).
The manipulations of pair-relatedness used in the current
studies, were intended to shed more light on these two types
of successful retrievals. One question addressed in the cur-
rent study was whether these retrievals, identified by the
authors, can consistently be documented regardless of the
manipulations used. A second question was whether and how
these manipulations would affect the pattern of attentional
costs required for the two types of successful retrievals. For
example, would the use of semantic supportive conditions
(semantically related pairs) change the pattern of attentional
requirements, or would it only affect the proportion of each
type of retrieval? Specifically, the use of related pairs could
either decrease the attentional costs associated with strategic
retrievals or merely decrease the proportion of this type of
retrievals without changing the costs associated with them.
Finally, we wanted to assess whether the identification of
different types of successful retrievals (strategic and one-step)
made by the authors, which was based on participants’ re-
sponse latency criterion, can also be obtained when stim-
uli-based criterion is used. Specifically, the question asked
was whether semantic manipulation, would also create two
types of successful retrievals, strategic ones characterized by
an attention-demanding cue-elaboration/search processes,
and one-step ones, characterized by the absence of an atten-
tion-demanding cue-elaboration/search process.
To summarize, we assessed the secondary task costs asso-
ciated with what seem to be obligatory retrieval processes,
costs which are sometimes greater than those associated with
encoding. Specifically, we wished to assess the costs associ-
ated with different phases of the retrieval period. We also
wanted to differentiate between the attentional costs required
by different types of retrievals (i.e., unsuccessful, strategic
and one-step successful). To this end, we used well-estab-
lished memory paradigms in which encoding and retrieval
phases are clearly separated. To avoid modality-specific in-
terference, we presented the verbal information to be re-
membered auditorily, and asked for spoken responses at re-
trieval, while the concurrent tasks used visual stimuli and
manual responses. We used a visual tracking task in which
participants had to follow a fast-moving target on the com-
puter monitor with a computer mouse. We employed a
cued-recall task previously shown (e.g., Craik et al., 1996) to
impose high demands for resources both at encoding and at
retrieval, as well as a tracking procedure similar to the one
used by Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000) and Guez &
Naveh-Benjamin (2006) as the secondary task to be per-
formed along with encoding or retrieval. This procedure al-
lows a micro-level analysis of momentary changes in par-
ticipants’ performance by requiring participants to track a
fast-moving target on a computer screen with a computer
mouse. The program provides, in addition to an overall
measure as previous studies did, a temporal distribution
measure of performance, which is the spatial distance be-
tween the target and the tracker every 20 ms in a continuous
fashion. The exact times when stimuli are presented audito-
rily by the experimenter during encoding (cue-target) and
retrieval (cue), and of participants’ vocal responses during
retrieval (target), are recorded by the computer through the
use of a voice-operated relay, and are superimposed on the
continuous distance measure. This enables the measurement
of the tracking task performance at virtually any moment
during the encoding and retrieval phases. Because perform-
ance on either task performed singly did not reach ceiling, we
contend that each task required full attention when performed
alone. When performed together, the tasks allowed the as-
sessment of performance throughout the dual-task interval. In
particular, the secondary tracking task monitors and reflects
the changes in attentional resources devoted to the encoding
and retrieval of the words. We created two aggregated seg-
ments of the temporal distribution of attentional resources,
one for encoding and one for retrieval. At encoding this was
done by superimposing all 5-s segments, during which a
word pair was presented, on top of each other, and measuring
the average attentional cost gradient in these 5 sec. At re-
trieval, we superimposed all 5-s segments, where a cue was
presented and a retrieved response was or was not provided,
on top of each other (see Results section for details). In both
cases, the aggregated 5-s single tracking task used as a base-
line was created and superimposed, then subtracted from the
encoding and retrieval aggregated segments at 50 ms slices.
These segments provided us with a micro-level temporal
distribution of the attentional resources required throughout
the encoding and retrieval phases. We examined memory
performance as well as the secondary tracking task perform-
ance to confirm that in such a paradigm the previously ob-
tained differential memory effects of divided attention at
encoding and retrieval are found. Finally, retrieval latency
was measured as the time between the presentation of the cue
and the initiation of the response as recorded by the
voice-operated relay. This latency provided one criterion for
the differentiation of different types of retrievals (i.e., slow
vs. fast). Finally, as mentioned above, we manipulated the
strength of the semantic relationships between the members
of each pair with the intention of learning more abut charac-
teristics of retrieval processes.
J. GUEZ ET AL. 463
Method
Participants
The participants, randomly assigned to this experiment, were
37 Ben-Gurion University of the Negev undergraduates, who
took part in the experiment for course credit.
Design
Two independent within-subject variables were used. One was
attention: either full attention, divided attention at encoding, or
divided attention at retrieval. The other was the se mantic related-
ness of the pair (related vs. unrelated se mantically). The depend-
ent variables were proportion of correctly recalled targets, per-
formance on the secondary tracking task, and retrieval latency.
Stimuli
The words used were high frequency two- or three-syllable
concrete nouns taken from Hebrew norms (Balgur, 1968).
Twelve lists were created, with 12 word pairs in each. Six of the
lists contained unrelated word pairs and the other six lists con-
tained related word pairs. The two words in each pair of the un-
related condition were semantically unrelated to each other. The
two words in eac h pair in the relate d condition wer e semantically
related, using Hebrew norms (Henik & Kaplan, 1988). In both
conditions there were no semantic relationships between words
of different pairs or between wor ds i n the differe nt lists. The A-B
pairs were presented auditorily at study at a pace of one every 5 s.
At test the A word of each pair was presented as a cue and the
participant had to produce the B response within 5-s (pilot work
showed that there were very few responses after 5 sec). The
tracking task involved a PC computer screen on which an asterisk
moved at a rate of 6 cm/second in a smooth continuous fashion.
This rate was chosen i n a pilot study as one which is moderately
difficult for participants when used alone (their performance
indicated no ceiling effect, as the distance measured was signifi-
cantly higher than zero mm). Four tracking paths were designated,
being combinations of left-right and up-down directions. Al-
though the movement of the asterisk appeared to be random, it
had been pre-designated for each path. Participants followed the
asterisk with the computer mouse which controlled a plus(+) sign
indicating their position on the screen, trying to stay as close as
possible to the asterisk.
Procedure
Each participant was presented with the 12 lists consisting of
two replications of all combinations of the three attention condi-
tions and the two relatedness levels. In addition, each participant
performed the tracking baseline task four times, each time for 60
s (which was the length of both the encoding and retrieval
phases). For each list, 12 word pairs were presented auditorily at
a pace of one every 5 s for a total of 60 s of encoding. Partici-
pants then engaged in a 30- s distractor activity in which they had
to subtract multiples of 7 from a number that appeared on the
screen and write their responses down on a sheet. Participants
were told to perform the distractor task as quickly and as accu-
rately as possible. After this interpolated activity , the cued-recall
phase began, where participants were given the A word of each
pair as a cue and then had to produce the B response within 5-s.
This was done for each pair, for a total of 60-s of retrieval. The
order of the cues at retrieval was randomized. Under the
full-attention condition, participants were told to pay full atten-
tion to the lists in order to encode and retrie ve them. In the track-
ing baseline condition, participants were instructed to catch the
asterisk target or to follow it as closely as possible. In the di-
vided-attention conditions they were told to pay equal attention to
encoding or retrieval and to the tracking task. Prior to each list,
participants were told which attention condition to expect. There
were four experimental tasks:
1) Single-task performance: memory full attention (4 trials,
two with related and two with unrelated pairs). In this task par-
ticipants were instructed to encode and retrieve information under
full attention conditions.
2) Single-task performance: tracking task (4 trials). Partici-
pants performed only the tracking task for 60 s. Each of the trials
used one of the four basic paths.
3) Dual-task: divided attention at encoding (4 trials, two with
related and two with unrelated pairs). On these trials participants
performed the encoding and the tracking task simultaneously,
under instructions to pay equal attention to each. In these trials,
retrieval was performed under full attention. Each of the trials
used one of the four basic paths.
4) Dual-task: divided attention at retrieval (4 trials, two with
related and two with unrelated pairs). In each of these trials, par-
ticipants encoded information under full attention, and then per-
formed the retrieval and the tracking task simultaneously, under
instructions to pay equal attention to each. Each of the trials used
one of the four basic paths.
The presentation of each word-pair at encoding (via the tape
recorder), of the cue word at retrieval, and participants’ vocal
retrieval of each word, triggered the voice-operated relay which
recorded the exact time when each of these events was initiated.
Participants initially practiced the tracking task alone, the mem-
ory task alone (full attention), and their combination either at
encoding (DA at encoding), or at retrieval (DA at retrieval). They
then continued with the experimental trials. Twelve formats of
order of tasks were used in which the order of the twelve memory
trials (four for each attention condition) was counterbalanced
using a Latin Square design, and three or four participants were
run in each order. The four single tracking task trials were per-
formed before the first list, and after the 4th, 8th and 12th lists.
Participants’ reports after the experiment indicated that they did
not realize that the same four tracking task paths were repeated in
the single- and dual-task conditions, but perceived the movement
of the asterisk to be random.
Results
Memory Performance
Mean percentage of words recalled correctly across trials and
participants for each condition appears in Table 1. A 3 × 2
two-way ANOVA with attention condition and pair-relatedness
as the two variables, indicated a significant effect of pair relat-
edness [F(1, 36) = 198.2, p < 0.01, MSe = 100.0], showing that
semantically related word pairs (M = 77.9%) were better re-
membered than unrelated pairs (M = 59.0%). The ANOVA also
indicated a significant effect of attention [F(2, 72) = 10.73, p <
0.01, MSe = 118.4]. A comparison of full attention (M = 70.9%)
and DA at encoding (M = 63.6%) showed a significant differ-
ence in performance [F(1, 36) = 15.54, p < 0.01, MSe = 125.5],
J. GUEZ ET AL.
464
but a comparison of full attention and DA at retrieval (M =
70.7%) showed none [F(1, 64) = <1.0, ns]. The comparison of
DA at encoding and DA at retrieval was significant [F(1, 36) =
14.98, p < 0.01, MSe = 1124.2]. The effect of the interaction of
the two variables was not significant [F(2, 72) = 1.03, ns, MSe
= 97.1]. These results replicate those reported in the literature,
in Craik et al., (1996), in Naveh-Benjamin et al. (1998), and in
Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000); DA at encoding resulted in a
greater drop in memory performance (7.3%, which is somewhat
smaller than the usual one obtained, see discussion below) than
did DA at retrieval (0%). In terms of memory costs (percenta ge
drop from the full attention condition), the decrease was 11.2%
for encoding and 0% for retrieval. In this experiment there was
no memory cost associated with divided attention at retrieval.
These results also replicate the results obtained by Naveh-
Benjamin, Craik & Ben-Shaul (2002) for word relatedness,
showing cued recall to be better for related than for unrelated
word pairs.
Retrieval Latency
For each condition, we averaged the latency for all successful
retrievals in each trial (latency for unsuccessful retrievals could
not be determined as participants provided no response). Mean
latency across trials and participants for each condition appear
in Table 1. The mean latency was 1915 ms in the full attention
condition, 2064 ms in the DA at encoding condition, and 1969
ms in the DA at retrieval condition. A 3 × 2 two-way ANOVA
showed a significant effect of attention [F(2, 72) = 8.73, p <
0.01, MSe = 48415]. A comparison of full attention with DA at
encoding showed a significant difference ([F(1, 36) = 18.16, p
< 0.01, MSe = 45437]. A comparison of full attention with DA
at retrieval showed a marginally significant effect [F(1, 36) =
2.80, p < 0.10, MSe = 38889]. The comparison of the two DA
conditions also showed a significant difference [F(1, 36) = 5.48,
p < 0.05, MSe = 60921]. These results replicate those obtained
in both experiments of Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000), showing
that DA both at encoding and at retrieval slowed down retrieval
responses, relative to the full attention condition, although
Table 1.
Means and standard deviations (in Parentheses) for the different
dependent measures in the different attention conditions for related and
unrelated word pairs.
Attention Conditions
Full AttentionDA-Encoding DA-Retrieval
Memory (Percentage
Correct)
Related words 80.0 (16.1) 74.4 (16.9) 79.2 (12.2)
Unrelated words 61.8 (17.5) 52.9 (17.6) 62.2 (18.1)
Latency (in ms)
Related words 1813 (221) 1937 (251) 1844 (216)
Unrelated words 2016 (261) 2191 (373) 2094 (292)
Tracking-overall
cost (in mm)
Related words ----- 1.14 (3.9) 2 . 42 (9.0)
Unrelated words ----- 2.025 (5.5) 1.73 (8.3)
in this experiment responses under DA at encoding were
slowed down more. The effect of pair relatedness was also
significant [F(1, 36) = 46.3, p < 0.01, MSe = 66867], showing
slower responses for unrelated (M = 2100 ms) than for related
pairs (M = 1865 ms). These results provide further evidence for
the facilitatory effects of pre-experimental information (seman-
tically related words) in accessing target information. Finally,
the interaction of the two variables was not significant [F < 1.0].
Tracking Task Performance
Retrieval vs. Encoding: Overall Costs
For each attention condition (except the full one) we aver-
aged the distance (in mm) between the target and the tracker
after each 50-ms interval, over the whole trial. To provide a
more precise measurement of encoding and retrieval DA costs,
we subtracted the appropriate baseline distance (averaged over
the 4 baseline trials) for each trial. The resultant overall track-
ing distances can be seen in Table 1. A 2 × 2 two-way ANOVA
with attention condition (DA at encoding and at retrieval) and
pair relatedness as the two variables, indicated that the effect of
attention (mean distance of 1.58 at encoding and 2.08 at re-
trieval) was not significant [F < 1.0]. This result reflects the fact
that in a cued-recall task, retrieval does not always require more
resources than encoding (e.g., Craik et al., 1996, Experiment 3;
Naveh-Benjamin et al., 1998, Experiment 1; Naveh-Benjamin
& Guez, 2000). The results also indicate that both encoding and
retrieval required resources for their execution as reflected by
the distance measures, which were significantly larger than 0.0
mm [t(36) = 2.27 and 2.50, for encoding and retrieval respec-
tively; p < 0.05 in both cases]. No effect was found for word
relatedness (M = 1.78 and 1.88, for unrelated and related pairs,
respectively), [F(1, 36) < 1.0, ns, MSe = 38.35]. The interaction
of the two variables was not significant [F < 1.0]. The fact that
there are no differences in overall attentional costs between the
retrieval of related and unrelated words is somewhat surprising,
since we expected semantically related targets to require fewer
attentional resources for their retrieval than required for seman-
tically unrelated targets. Such a result indicates that although
semantic related targets are recalled faster and with a higher
probability than semantic unrelated targets, they require as
much attentional resources in this process as semantically re-
lated targets. Such a lack of differences in overall attentional
costs is not due to the insensitivity of the tracking measure.
Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000, Experiment 2) showed that
more overall attentional resources are required in the retrieval
of infrequent than frequent words.
Since this study was intended not only to compare general
resources associated with encoding and retrieval but also to
specify the temporal distribution of these resources for encod-
ing and retrieval, we created aggregated 5-s segments for en-
coding and retrieval, similar to the technique employed in the
Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000) and Guez & Naveh-Benjamin
(2006) studies. For encoding, where the presentation of a word
pair by the experimenter occurred every 5 s, we superimposed
for each participant the 12 five-second segments for each en-
coding trial, and examined the distribution of tracking per-
formance (after single-task tracking baseline was subtracted).
We then averaged performance on the four DA at encoding
trials for this participant. For retrieval, the full 5-s segment was
used in trials without a retrieval response (unsuccessful retriev-
J. GUEZ ET AL. 465
als). For trials with a retrieval response (successful retrievals),
participants gave their response at different points during the
5-s retrieval interval. Thus, we chose the 2-s mark, as this was
the average retrieval latency of the participants (see retrieval
latency data above) to represent the retrieval response in the
prototypical segment. The next step involved taking all of trials
with a retrieval response and dividing each into two segments:
from cue presentation to response, and from response to the
next cue. We then took each of these two segments for each
retrieval interval and superimposed them on the aggregated
segment. If the segment cue-response was shorter than 2 s, then
the segment was stretched to fit a 2-s interval. Likewise, if the
retrieval response took longer than 2 s, the segment was com-
pressed to fit the 2-s interval. Similarly, the intervals from re-
sponse to cue for each trial were superimposed on the aggre-
gated 3-s interval after the response, by either stretching or
compressing them, as necessary. This procedure produced a
standardized relative positioning of tracking performance
across all words with respect to the periods before or after the
actual retrieval.
Retrieval and Encoding Phases.
In order to analyze the attentional costs associated with dif-
ferent phases of the retrieval process, we broke down the ag-
gregated 5 s retrieval segment into three components,
cue-encoding, cue-elaboration/search, and retrieval mode, as
done in the Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000) and Guez &
Naveh-Benjamin (2006) studies. The first component involves
the encoding of the cue word, which lasted, on the average,
about 500 ms from the beginning of the mouthing of the cue by
the experimenter, based on our measurements which indicated
that it took the experimenter about 400 - 500 ms on the average
to say the cue-word (we assume that participants encoded the
cue, at least partially, while it was presented auditorily). The
second component involves cue-elaboration or search for the
appropriate target word, which starts once the cue-word is en-
coded and ends when the participants overtly retrieve the target
word (or a bit earlier, if, when the target is found, participants
have to create a motor program in order to mouth the response).
As the average retrieval latency was 2000 ms (see above), the
time between 0.5 and 2 s was designated as cue-elabora-
tion/search time for retrievals. Finally, the time between a suc-
cessful retrieval and the appearance of the next cue was desig-
nated as a retrieval mode only, as participants were presumably
not engaged in any active retrieval during this period. To allow
for comparison across participants, this segmentation was per-
formed on the adjusted retrieval segments, as described earlier.
Note that performance in the baseline single-task tracking con-
dition did not exhibit any particular pattern during the different
phases. Furthermore, it did not vary systematically across the
different phases.
To isolate the costs associated with each of the above re-
trieval components and to simplify the analysis, we used the
first data point in Table 2 (0.0 to 0.5 s) to estimate the atten-
tional cost associated with cue-encoding, the mean of the sec-
ond, third, and fourth data points (0.5 - 1.0 to 1.5 - 2.0 s) to
estimate the cost associated with cue-elaboration/search, and
the mean of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth data points (2.5
- 3.0 to 4.0 - 4.5 s) to estimate the cost associated with retrieval
mode. In this analysis we did not include either the fifth data
point (2.0 - 2.5), since in some of the trials it was associated
Table 2.
Secondary tracking task means and standard deviations (in Parent-
heses) for the different phases of the encoding and retrieval segments of
related and unrelated word pairs (Distance in mm).
Phase
Cue-encoding* Cue-Elaboration/
Search* Mode
Encoding
Related words0.72 (3.7 ) 0.92 (3.7) 1.31 (4.2 )
Unrelated
words 1.51 (5.5) 1.98 (5. 6) 2.14 (5.6)
Retrieval
Related words2.01 (8.1 ) 3.35 (8.9) 1.84 (9.2 )
Unrelated
words 1.49 (7.4) 2.64 (7. 9) 1.03 (8.7)
Unsuccessful
retrievals
Related words3.96 (12.5) 5.38 (12.4) 5.61 (11.8)
Unrelated
words 1.30 (8.5) 2.90 (8.4) 3.31 (10.0)
Successful
retrievals
Related words1.62 (7.3 ) 3.01 (8.5) 0.97 (8.6 )
Unrelated
words 1.38 (7.3) 2.42 (7. 8) –0.26 (8.3)
Slow
retrievals
Related
words 1.48 (7.8) 3. 42 (9.2) 0.54 (9.2)
Unrelated
words 2.13 (8.3) 3.52 (9. 0) 0.08 (9.2)
Fast
retrievals
Related words1.26 (7.2 ) 1.93 (7.7) 1.21 (8.2
Unrelated
words –0.58 (6.6) –0.46 (6.4) –0.52 (7.4)
with retrievals, or the tenth data point (4.5 - 5.0), since its re-
sults may be confounded with anticipation of the next cue-word.
For comparison purposes only, we similarly designated the
respective periods during encoding, as stimulus encoding, en-
coding processes, and encoding mode. This division (a fairly
arbitrary one) is based on the segmentation at retrieval. For
example, it would have been equally possible to have the en-
coding processes phase occupy the entire period after the stim-
uli were encoded rather than being followed by an encoding
mode phase (see General Discussion). The resultant means for
unrelated and sema ntically related pairs appear in Table 2. Sev-
eral patterns can be observed in Table 2. First, as already men-
tioned above, both encoding and retrieval required attentional
resources for their execution, as reflected by the distance func-
tion being above the baseline (0.0 mm). Second, there seems to
be an effect of phase. Specifically, the cue-elabora- tion/search
phase seems to require more resources than the cue-encoding
J. GUEZ ET AL.
466
and mode phases. The table also indicates an interaction be-
tween encoding/retrieval and phase, where the difference be-
tween encoding and retrieval is the greatest in the
cue-elaboration/search phase. A 2 × 2 × 3 three-way ANOVA
with attention condition (DA at encoding and at retrieval), pair
relatedness, and phase-component as the three variables indi-
cated no significant effect of encoding vs. retrieval [F < 1.0], no
significant effect of pair relatedness [F < 1.0], and a significant
effect of phase-component [F(2, 72) = 8.30, p < 0.01, MSe =
3.25]. Follow-up analyses showed that the significant effect of
phase-component was due to the greater resources required in
the cue-elaboration/search phase than in the cue-encoding and
mode phases ([F(1, 36) = 14.14, p < 0.001, MSe = 3.38], and
[F(1, 36) = 12.64, p < 0.01, MSe = 2.48], respectievly). The
only significant interaction was that of encoding/retrieval and
phase component [F(2, 74) = 11.26, p < 0.01, MSe = 2.84].
Several follow-up analyses were performed on this significant
interaction. Analysis of simple effects of the phase-component
for encoding indicated significant differences [(F(2, 72) = 3.43,
p < 0.05, MSe = 1.03]. Follow-up comparisons for encoding
indicated one significant difference, between the cue-encoding
and the mode phase [F(1, 36) = 5.14, p < 0.05, MSe = 1.37],
where the latter was associated with larger distance. A similar
analysis for retrieval also indicated significant differences [F(2,
72) = 12.88, p < 0.00, MSe = 2.01]. Follow-up comparisons for
retrieval indicated that the distance measure was larger in the
cue-elaboration/search phase than in the cue-encoding and the
mode phases ([F(1, 36) = 13.81, p < 0.00, MSe = 2.15], and
[F(1, 36) = 31.1, p < 0.00, MSe = 1.48], respectively). The
latter two were not different from each other [F < 1.0]. These
results replicate those obtained in Naveh-Benjamin & Guez
(2000, Experiment 2).
Types of Retrieval
To specify the attentional costs associated with unsuccessful
retrievals, we separated (as in Naveh-Benjamin & Guez, 2000),
trials in which participants provided no retrieved response
(designated unsuccessful retrievals), from those where a re-
trieved response was given (designated successful retrievals,
since in over 95% of the cases when a word was retrieved, it
was the correct one; we therefore took all responses to indicate
successful retrievals). Furthermore, to assess potential differ-
ences among the successful retrievals (see Naveh-Benjamin &
Guez, 2000) we split them, as in Experiment 1, into two groups:
fast retrievals comprising those retrievals with response latency
of 1400 ms or less (mean = 1125 ms), and slow retrievals,
comprising those retrievals with a response latency over 1400
ms (mean latency 2356 ms). This resulted in 25% out of all
successful retrievals being fast and 75% being slow. We created
two aggregated retrieval segments, one for fast retrievals and
one for slow retrievals. In order to analyze the attentional costs
associated with different phases of the retrieval period for un-
successful, slow, and fast retrievals, we broke down the 5-s
retrieval period into the three components mentioned above --
cue-encoding, cue-elaboration/search, and retrieval mode. Ta-
ble 2 presents secondary task tracking performance averaged
across all participants (distance in mm) for the aggregated 5-s
unsuccessful, slow successful, and fast successful retrieval
segments for the related and unrelated pairs separately, after
single-task tracking performance was subtracted. This secon-
dary task performance represents the overall temporal distribu-
tion of attentional costs associated with each type of retrieval.
The distribution of the distance measure for each type of re-
trieval across time can be seen in Figure 1. The encoding com-
ponent was added for completeness.
A 3 × 2 × 3 three-way ANOVA with retrieval type as one
variable, pair relatedness as the other variable, and phase/
component as the third variable, indicated a significant effect of
type of retrieval [F(2, 72) = 8.63, p < 0.01, MSe = 69.44] (see
Table 2). Further comparisons indicated that fast retrievals (M
= 0.47) were associated with shorter distance than either slow
retrievals (M = 1.86), or unsuccessful ones (M = 3.75), [F(1, 36)
= 3.52, p = 0.06], and [F(1, 36) = 11.53, p <0.01], respectively.
In addition, slow retrievals were associated with shorter dis-
tance than unsuccessful ones [F(1, 36) = 8.96, p < 0.01]. Also,
the effect of component/phase was significant [F(2, 72) = 7.44,
p < 0.01, MSe = 12.89]. Further comparisons showed that the
search/cue-elaboration phase (M = 2.78) was more demanding
than either the cue-encoding (M = 1.59) or the mode (M = 1.70)
phases [F(1, 36)=11.25, p < 0.01, MSe = 14.0], and [F(1,
36)=15.62, p < 0.01, MSe = 8.23], respectively. The latter two
phases were not different from each other [F < 0. 01]. Finally,
the effect of pair relatedness was not significant [F<1.0], indi-
cating that the distance measure for unrelated pairs was not
different than the one for related ones. Most importantly, the
interaction of type of retrieval and component/phase was sig-
nificant [F(4, 144) = 10.45; p < .01, MSe = 7.83] (see Table 2).
Several follow-up comparisons were carried out. The first one
comparing unsuccessful and slow successful retrievals in the
cue-encoding and cue-elaboration search phases showed no
significant interaction [F < 1.0]. This reflects the fact that both
retrievals showed the same increase in the distance measure
from the cue-encoding to the cue-elaboration phase. In contrast,
these types of retrieval show an interaction with phase/compo-
nent, when cue-elaboration and retrieval mode phases are in-
spected [F(1, 36) = 25.9, p< .01, MSe = 8.65]. This interaction
reflects the decrease in distance from the cue-elaboration/search
to the retrieval mode phase in the slow retrievals, coupled with
no such a decrease in the unsuccessful retrievals. Such a pattern
of results for the unsuccessful retrieval is consistent with the
notion that participants continuously allocate attention in an
attempt to retrieve the target. The pattern of results for slow
Figure 1.
Temporal distribution of performance on the secondary track- g task
for the aggregated 5-s encoding, unsuccessful retrieval, slow retrieval,
and fast retrieval segments after single-task tracking performance
subtraction (distance in millimeters).
J. GUEZ ET AL. 467
retrievals is consistent with the idea that greater attentional
resources are allocated to retrieve the target, and then fewer are
allocated once the target was retrieved. The next interaction
comparison looked at slow and fast retrievals in the cue-en-
coding and cue-elaboration/search phases. This effect was sig-
nificant [F(1, 36) = 9.16, p < 0.01, MSe = 3.26] (see Table 2
and Figure 2(a)). It reflects the fact that slow retrievals showed
an increase in the distance measure from cue-encoding to
cue-elaboration/search [F(1, 36) = 17.69, p < 0.01, MSe = 5.81],
whereas fast retrievals did not [F < 1.0]. In addition, the inter-
action of slow and fast retrievals and the cue-elaboration and
retrieval mode components was significant [F(1, 36) = 23.9, p <
0.01, MSe = 5.93], reflecting the fact that for slow retrievals
there was a decrease in the distance measure from the
cue-elaboration/search to the retrieval mode component [F(1,
36) = 41.84, p < 0.01, MSe = 8.84]; fast retrievals did not show
this trend [F < 1.0]. Finally, follow up interaction comparisons
of unsuccessful and fast retrievals showed an interaction which
approached significance [F(1, 36) = 3.76, p= .06, MSe = 6.11],
reflecting the increased distance from the cue-encoding to
cue-elaboration/search phase for unsuccessful retrievals [F(1,
36) = 8.67, p< 0.01, MSe = 9.74], but no such increase in the
fast retrievals [F < 1.0]. The unsuccessful and fast retrievals did
not interact with the cue-elaboration retrieval mode phases,
suggesting that both continued to require the same amount of
attention resources in the retrieval mode phase as in the cue-
elaboration/search one [F(1, 36) = 1.14, ns., MSe = 8.06]. All
other effects were not significant [F< 1.0 in all cases]. In par-
ticular, unrelated and related pairs demonstrated similar pat-
terns of attentional resource allocation (see Figure 2(b)). The
above analyses reveal a substantial increase in attentional re-
sources associated with cue-elaboration/search processes, along
with a decrease in these resources once retrieval is successful.
This pattern was observed for both unsuccessful and slow re-
trievals. For unsuccessful retrievals, a continuous search for the
target was associated with substantial attentional resources
being required after cue-encoding, and throughout the retrieval
period. Fast retrievals, on the other hand, did not show this
increase in attentional resources throughout the cue-elaboration/
search phase. Interestingly, these patterns characterize both
related and unrelated word pairs. The different phases of re-
trieval of semantically related and unrelated targets seem to be
similar in terms of the attentional costs required. This result is
somewhat unexpected since we were expecting the semantic
relationships between the cue and the target to decrease the
amount of attentional resources required for the cue-elaboration
processes. Pre-experimental knowledge seems to affect both the
rate of access to the information (reflected by retrieval latency),
and its success (reflected by memory accuracy), but does not
affect the attentional resources associated with this retrieval. It
seems, as with similar results obtained by Naveh-Benjamin &
Guez (2000) with low- and high-frequency words, that the in-
crease in attentional requirements involved in cue-elaboration/
search of the target word is constant and not necessarily related
to the type of materials used.
Proportion of Slow and Fast Retrievals
We looked at the proportion of fast and slow retrievals in the
related and unrelated pairs. Mean percentage of fast retrievals
of all successful retrievals was 35.4% in the related pairs condi-
tion and 22.9% in the unrelated pair condition. A t-test showed
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.
(a). Temporal distribution of performance on the secondary tracking
task for the aggregated 5-s successful retrieval segments after sin-
gle-task tracking performance subtraction (distance in millimeters), for
slow and fast retrievals. (b). Temporal distribution of performance on
the secondary tracking task for the aggregated 5-s successful retrieval
segments after single-task tracking performance subtraction (distance
in millimeters), for semantically related and unrelated pairs.
that these proportions were significantly different from each
other [t(36) = 6.40, p < 0.01]. These results indicate that the
better memory performance in the related pairs condition could
be due to the increase in the proportion of fast retrievals in this
condition relative to the unrelated pairs condition.
Discussion
Overall, the results of this experiment replicated and ex-
tended some recent results reported by Naveh-Benjamin &
Guez (2000) and Guez & Naveh-Benjamin (2006). First, DA at
encoding, but not at retrieval, affected memory performance. In
addition, retrieval latency was slowed down under DA both at
encoding and at retrieval. Also, the attentional costs associated
with retrieval were mostly related to the time after the cue was
encoded and before a retrieval response was initiated. Success-
ful retrievals show this pattern until a retrieval response is pro-
duced, whereas unsuccessful retrieval show it throughout the
retrieval period until the next cue is presented. Furthermore,
successful retrievals appear in two distinct varieties: slow and
fast. Whereas the former are associated with increase in re-
sources during the cue-elaboration/search phase, the latter show
no increase in resources associated with search for the target.
The results of the manipulation of pair relatedness yield similar
patterns to those obtained in the authors previous reports in
showing, again, the resilience of retrieval process to the effects
of divided attention. However, while related pairs seem to be
retrieved faster and with a higher success rate, the attentional
cost to achieve this retrieval is not different than that for unre-
J. GUEZ ET AL.
468
lated pairs. In particular, retrieving a target which is semanti-
cally related to the cue seems to require attention during the
cue-elaboration/search processes to the same degree as when
the target is unrelated semantically to the cue. Pre-experimental
knowledge seems to help in rate of access and its success but
does not reduce the effort required.The outcome of the current
experiment converges on results reported in the past, and, in
addition, supplies further information about the effects of di-
vided attention on retrieval processes, and the attentional costs
associated with these processes. The current experiment repli-
cated previous results in showing an asymmetry between en-
coding and retrieval processes under the effects of divided at-
tention: whereas dividing attention at encoding significantly
downgrades memory performance, dividing attention at re-
trieval has almost no effect on memory performance. This was
demonstrated in the reported experiment, using a tracking task
which served as the secondary task, and cued-recall as the
memory task. Retrieval processes, however, required substan-
tial attentional resources as reflected by performance on the
secondary tracking task. In the first glance, comparing encoding
and retrieval overall cost it seems that the resources required
during retrieval were the same than those required during en-
coding. These patterns are similar to those reported in the lit-
erature for cued-recall tasks. While some studies show retrieval
to require overall more resources than encoding (e.g., Craik et
al., 1996, Ex. 1 and 2; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 1998; Naveh-
Benjamin & Guez, 2000, Experiment 1), others (Craik et al.,
1996, Ex. 3; Naveh-Benjamin, et al., 1998, Experiment 2,
Naveh-Benjamin, et al., 2000a; Naveh-Benjamin & Guez, 2000,
Experiment 2), show the two to require substantial but equal
resources. The nature of the secondary task can not explain the
different patterns of attentional costs at encoding and retrieval,
as the same tracking task was used Naveh-Benjamin & Guez
(2000) and Guez & Naveh-Benjamin (2006) experiments. In-
terestingly, free recall is associated with larger attentional costs
than encoding (Craik et. al., 1996, Anderson, Craik & Naveh-
Benjamin, 1998). Yet, in our suggested view this general com-
parison and its variety needs more closer analysis in order to
test which type or phase take what amount of resource.
Phases of Retrieval
One purpose of the research reported here was to further as-
sess the attentional costs associated with retrieval. For this
purpose, the current study included a cued-recall task which
enables one the separation of the attentional resources required.
Based partially on Tulving’s (1983) taxonomy of retrieval
sub-processes, and on results by Naveh-Benjamin & Guez
(2000) and Guez & Naveh-Benjamin (2006), we have desig-
nated three retrieval phases or subcomponents: cue encoding,
cue-elaboration/search processes for a specific word, and the
operation of a retrieval mode. The results indicate, as in
Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000), but in contrast to previous
studies, that retrieval, at least during a cued-recall task, does not
require uniform attentional resources. The first phase of
cue-encoding requires some resources, much like stimuli detec-
tion requires at encoding. The second phase, involving
cue-elaboration/search processes requires substantial resources
for its execution. This was shown in two ways. First, for suc-
cessful retrievals, the period after the cue-encoding and prior to
the retrieved response was associated with poorer performance
on the secondary task (larger tracking distance), than either the
respective period at encoding or the retrieval period following
the retrieval response. Second, the use of a cued-recall task
allowed us to measure attentional resources associated with
both successful and unsuccessful retrievals. Performance on the
secondary task for unsuccessful retrievals (where no retrieved
response was provided by the participant) was poor throughout
the retrieval period of a given target. Specifically, while unsuc-
cessful retrievals consume attentional resources for their execu-
tion as successful retrievals do up to the point of the retrieved
response, these unsuccessful retrievals continue to require re-
sources for the whole retrieval period, presumably reflecting
the continuation of cue-elaboration/search processes. With
respect to the question of whether being in a retrieval state of
mind which operates in the background (retrieval mode), also
requires attentional resources, the answer is not clear-cut. When
this is evaluated by looking at successful retrievals after their
completion—a period when participants were not trying to
retrieve any given word (they did not know which cue would be
presented next)—the attentional costs were not significantly
higher than the baseline. This finding is not in line with our
previews finding showing retrieval mode requiring attentional
costs above and beyond those required in the secondary task
baseline condition (Naveh-Benjamin & Guez (2000) and Guez
& Naveh-Benjamin (2006).
Types of Retri e val
Successful and unsuccessful retrievals showed both similari-
ties and differences. While both require the same amount of
attentional resources for the execution of the cue-encoding and
cue-elaboration phases, after these phases the pattern of their
attentional cost diverges: whereas successful retrievals (where
the retrieval response terminates the cue-elaboration/search
phase moving participants to a retrieval mode phase), are asso-
ciated with fewer attentional resources, unsuccessful retrievals
(where the cue-elaboration/search phase proceeds until the next
cue is presented), are associated with continuous high atten-
tional costs2. These results obtained here, replicate and extend
those reported by the authors in the context of other manipula-
tions. Another issue studied in the reported experiment con-
cerned the existence of different types of successful retrievals.
We wanted to find out whether different types of retrievals can
be distinguished and their associated attentional costs be meas-
ured. One measure used here to distinguish these types of re-
trieval is of retrieval latency; we distinguished slow from fast
retrievals and estimated the attentional resources associated
with each. Results indicated that these two types of retrievals
require different amount of resources for their execution. Slow
retrievals were associated with substantial attentional resources
for their execution, especially during the cue-elaboration/search
phase. Fast retrievals, however, required fewer resources for
their execution, and in particular did not seem to show an in-
crease in required attentional resources during the
cue-elaboration/search phase. One way to interpret these results
is by suggesting that fast retrievals bypass and do not require
cue- elaboration/search processes. Using such an interpretation,
the current work suggests the operation of two qualitatively
different types of successful retrievals: one which is fast and
requires few attentional resources for its completion (one-step),
and the other which is slower and requires substantial resources
J. GUEZ ET AL. 469
(strategic). Note that the measurements of retrieval latency and
secondary task performance were independent of each other.
Fast retrievals could therefore theoretically require less, more,
or the same amount of attentional resources as their slower
counterparts. Interestingly, the semantic relatedness manipula-
tion of the cue to the target did not affect the resource allocation
for slow and fast retrievals. In particular, it did not affect the
attentional patterns during the cue-elaboration/search phase;
that is, the attentional resources associated with the processes
involved in searching for the target in an episodic memory task
do not seem to be sensitive to the pre-experimental semantic
relationships between the cue and the target. The search for the
target involves the same amount of attentional resources re-
gardless of whether the cue is related or unrelated to the target,
even though a related cue increases the probability and the
speed at which the target is episodically retrieved. The lack of
differences in the attentional costs associated with the retrieval
of semantically related and unrelated words is somewhat sur-
prising. It may be explained by the fact that in the related-pairs
condition, the cue provided information about the target, but
since not all the targets were the strongest possible ones associ-
ated semantically with the cue, on some occasions, another
strong pre-experimentally related association was retrieved. It
forced the participants to inhibit this potent response and to
continue their search for the correct target, resulting in extra
effort associated with the cue-elaboration/search phase of the
strongly related targets. These results are somewhat different
from Guez & Naveh-Benjamin (2006) using repetition manipu-
lation. It seem that providing episodic enhancement to the
cue-target relationships, by repeating word pairs three times
during the study phase, increases the probability of retrieval
success and the speed of the retrieval. In addition, in contrast to
the current report, episodic enhancement at encoding leads to
retrieval which requires less attentional resources. In particular,
fewer resources are required in this case during the
cue-elaboration/search component. Interestingly, this effect
seems to be mediated by a change in the nature of retrievals of
the thrice- presented pairs; the retrieval of these pairs seems to
mostly bypass the search process, making it faster and less
dependent on attentional resources.
As mentioned in the Introduction, the identification of two
types of successful retrievals is in line with several suggestions
in the literature that the retrieval process is not unitary and that
different retrievals may be based on different mechanisms. For
example, Jacoby (1991; 1998) distinguishes automatic retriev-
als based on familiarity from controlled ones based on recollec-
tion. Gardiner and Java (1993) distinguish retrievals based on
recollective experience (remember responses) from ones based
on familiarity only (know responses). Although both Jacoby
and Gardiner and Java use these terms mostly within the con-
text of a recognition paradigm, it seems plausible that the
one-step retrievals we have witnessed could be related to those
retrievals which are automatic, according to Jacoby (though
controlled retrieval also can sometimes be faster, too), or to
those which Gardiner and Java suggest are based on familiarity.
Our strategic retrievals may be related to those retrievals
termed controlled by Jacoby or to those based on remember
responses as suggested by Gardiner and Java. Further research
should address this apparent similarity. Note that while the
distinction between controlled and automatic retrievals, made
by Jacoby and Gardiner and Java, is based on subjective re-
sponses by the participants, our current results extend these by
providing objective indices of latency, and resources associated
with each type of retrieval.
Employment of a Multi-Measure Approach
The current results, along with those reported by the authors
(2000, 2006), suggest that a thorough investigation of encoding
and retrieval processes should involve several measures of per-
formance that allow, separately and in combination, the uncov-
ering of different facets and components of these processes.
While previous studies used either a uni-measure approach (e.g.,
Murdock, 1965—only accuracy; Johnston, et al., 1970—only
overall attentional costs; Carrier & Pashler, 1995—only latency)
or a bi-measure approach (e.g., Baddeley, et al., 1984—accu-
racy and latency; Craik, et al., 1996, and Naveh-Benjamin et al.,
1998—accuracy and attentional costs), we suggest the use of
multi-measure approach. In the current study we used four
measures of performance: memory accuracy, retrieval latency,
overall attentional costs, and the temporal distribution of atten-
tional costs. We believe that such an approach, provides a more
comprehensive perspective on the phenomenon under investi-
gation. In particular, the introduction of on-line temporal meas-
urements of a specific pattern of behavior could help us in
reaching conclusions regarding characteristic processes which,
in combination, yield that behavior. The current approach is
related to a line of research on retrieval processes, which tries
to unveil the dynamics of memory retrieval. Several studies
(e.g., Hintzman & Curren, 1994, Hintzman & Caulton, 1997;
Dosher, 1981, McElree & Dosher, 1993) have used variations
on the response-signal method to determine how the retrieval of
a single item or event unfolds over time. In this method, the
amount of time available for retrieval is varied and memory
accuracy is plotted as a function of the increase in processing
time. Although the studies reported in the current article were
run within a different research context and for a different pur-
pose, and have, moreover, employed a cued-recall procedure
rather than one based on recognition, the two approaches have
some aspects in common. In particular, whereas the response-
signal procedure focuses on the time-related dynamics of
memory accuracy, the current study focus on the dynamics of
the attentional resources associated with memory accuracy. It
may be interesting to find out whether the different retrieval
dynamics patterns established for different memory tasks
within the response signal procedure also show different atten-
tional patterns. The results of the current experiment indicate
that there may be both similarities and differences in the results
obtained by each procedure. For example, whereas Dosher &
Rosedale (1991) showed that the rate at which information is
retrieved is faster when pre-experimental associations, in addi-
tion to episodic ones, are employed (consistent with our latency
results), our current results show similar attentional resources
patterns associated with the retrieval of these different types of
associations.
Conclusion
The current research extends the conclusions of our earlier
research by indicating that the processes associated with en-
coding and retrieval processes are different. While divided
attention at encoding interferes markedly with later memory
J. GUEZ ET AL.
470
performance divided attention at retrieval does so to a much
lesser degree. Retrieval processes, however, seem to be as at-
tention-demanding as encoding processes or even more so. This
demand for attentional resources is related to whether retrieval
was successful or not, and whether it is strategic or direct. In
addition, the current study indicated that this demand for re-
sources is modulated by the retrieval phase, where cue-elabo-
ration/search processes, in particular, require substantial re-
sources for their execution.
References
Anderson, N. D., Craik, F. I. M., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (1998). The
attentional demands of encoding and retrieval in younger and older
adults: I. Evidence from divided attention costs. Psychology and Ag-
ing, 13, 405-423. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.3.405
Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., & Thomson, N. (1984).
Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 13, 518-540.
doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.518
Balgur, R. (1968). List of basic words for school. Israel: Otsar
Hamoreh.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for
understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
Carrier, M. L., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory
retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1339
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson (1996).
The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes
in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
125, 159-180. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159
Dosher, B. A. (1981). The effects of delay and interference: A
speed-accuracy study. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 551-582.
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90020-7
Dosher, B. A. (1984). Discriminating preexperimental (semantic) from
learned (episodic)associations: A speed-accuracy study. Cognitive
Psychology, 16, 519-555. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(84)90019-7
Dosher, B. A., & Rosedale, G. (1991). Judgments of semantic and
episodic relatedness: Common time-course and failure of segregation.
Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 125-160.
doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90001-Z
Danker, J. D. & Anderson, J. R. (2010). The Ghosts of Brain States
Past: Remembering Reactivates the Brain Regions Engaged During
Encoding. Psychologic al Bulletin, 136, 87-102.
doi:10.1037/a0017937
Gardiner, J. M., and Java, R. I. (1993). Recognizing and remembering.
In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris
(Eds.). Theories of Memory,. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
Griffith, D. (1976). The attentional demands of mnemonic control
processes. Memory and Cognition, 4, 103-108.
doi:10.3758/BF03213261
Guez, J. & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2006). Divided Attention at Encoding
and Retrieval for Once- and Thrice-Presented Items: A Micro-Level
Analysis of Attentional Costs. European Journal of Cognitive Psy-
chology, 18 (6), 874-898. doi:10.1080/09541440500485854
Guynn, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1999). Generate – Sometimes rec-
ognized, sometimes not. Journal of Memory and Language, 41,
398-415. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2652
Henik, A., & Kaplan, L. (1988). Categories content: Findings regarding
Hebrew categories and comparison to U.S. finding. Psychology, 1,
104-112.
Herrmann, D. J., & McGuighlan, J. P. (1974). Recognition latency for a
subjectively organized list. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102,
888-889. doi:10.1037/h0036342
Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recogni-
tion and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of
familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1-18.
doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1001
Hintzman, D. L., & Caulton, D. A. (1997). Recognition memory and
modality judgments: A comparison of retrieval dynamics. Journal of
Memory and Language, 37, 1-23. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2511
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating
automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and
Language, 30, 513-541. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F
Jacoby, L. L. (1998). Invariance in automatic influences of memory:
Toward a user’s guide for the process-dissociation procedure. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
24, 3-26. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.1.3
Johnston, W. A., Greenberg, S. N., Fisher, R. P., & Martin, D. W.
(1970). Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory proc-
esses. Journal of E xperimental Psychology, 83, 164-171.
doi:10.1037/h0028554
Johnston, W. A., Griffith, D., & Wagstaff, R. R. (1972). Speed, accu-
racy, and ease of recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be-
havior, 11, 512-520. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80034-3
Johnston, W. A., & Uhl, C. N. (1976). The contributions of encoding
effort and variability to the spacing effect on free recall. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2,
153-160.
Kolers, P. A. (1973). Remembering operations. Memory and Cognition,
1, 347-355. doi:10.3758/BF03198119
McElree, B., & Dosher, B.A. (1993). Serial retrieval processes in the
recovery of order information. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 122, 291-315. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.291
Mishkin, M., & Appenzeller, T. (1987). The anatomy of memory. Sci-
entific American, 256, 80-89. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0687-80
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of proc-
essing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.
doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
Moscovitch, M. (1992). Memory and working-with-memory: A com-
ponent process model based on modules and central systems. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 257-267.
doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.257
Murdock, B. B. Jr. (1965). Effects of a subsidiary task on short-term
memory. British Journal of Psychology, 56, 413-419.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1965.tb00983.x
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., & Ben-Shaul, L. (2002). Age-
related differences in cued recall: Effects of support at encoding and
retrieval. Aging, Neuropsychology & Cognition, 9, 276-287.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1091
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J. & Dori, H. (1998). Ef-
fects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in hu-
man memory: Further support for an asymmetry. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1091-1104.
doi:10.3758/BF03209344
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Gavrilescu, D., & Anderson, N.
D. (2000a). Asymmetry between encoding and retrieval processes:
Evidence from divided attention and a calibration analysis. Memory
and Cognition, 28, 965-976. doi:10.1080/027249800410454
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Perretta, J. G., & Tonev, S. T.
(2000b). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval
processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. The Quarterly Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychol og y, 53, 609-625.
doi:10.1080/027249800410454
Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Guez, J. (2000). Effects of divided attention on
encoding and retrieval processes: Assessment of attentional costs and
a componential analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1461-1482.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1461
Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remem-
bering. American Psychologist, 45, 1043-1056.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1043
Roediger, H. L., Gallo, D. A., & Geraci, L. (2002). Processing ap-
J. GUEZ ET AL.
471
proaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing
framework. Memory, 10, 319-332. doi:10.1080/09658210224000144
Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and re-
trieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80,
352-373. doi:10.1037/h0020071
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford
University Press.