Neural correlates of the production effect: An fMRI study
•The production effect refers to better memory for items read aloud than silently.•Theories suggest reading aloud makes those items distinctive in memory.•We conducted the first study of the production effect using fMRI.•Reading aloud activated semantic and/or sensorimotor regions.•These regions wer...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Brain and cognition 2021-08, Vol.152, p.105757-105757, Article 105757 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •The production effect refers to better memory for items read aloud than silently.•Theories suggest reading aloud makes those items distinctive in memory.•We conducted the first study of the production effect using fMRI.•Reading aloud activated semantic and/or sensorimotor regions.•These regions were predictive of the behavioral production effect.
Recognition memory is improved for items produced at study (e.g., by reading them aloud) relative to a non-produced control condition (e.g., silent reading). This production effect is typically attributed to the extra elements in the production task (e.g., motor activation, auditory perception) enhancing item distinctiveness. To evaluate this claim, the present study examined the neural mechanisms underlying the production effect. Prior to a recognition memory test, different words within a study list were read either aloud, silently, or while saying “check” (as a sensorimotor control condition). Production improved recognition, and aloud words yielded higher rates of both recollection and familiarity judgments than either silent or control words. During encoding, fMRI revealed stronger activation in regions associated with motor, somatosensory, and auditory processing for aloud items than for either silent or control items. These activations were predictive of recollective success for aloud items at test. Together, our findings are compatible with a distinctiveness-based account of the production effect, while also pointing to the possible role of other processing differences during the aloud trials as compared to silent and control. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0278-2626 1090-2147 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105757 |