The production effect: the role of attentional resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production effect is the benefit in memory found for produced (i.e., read aloud) words relative to words read silently. It is proposed that the production effect occurs as a result of the enhanced distinctiveness associated with the produced items. The current research investigated whether attentional resources are required to encode and/or retrieve the distinctive information associated with the produced words. The literature suggests that the encoding of this distinctive information occurs automatically, but at test, purposeful attention is required to retrieve this distinctive information. To test this, participants read words aloud and silently, under either full or divided attention. Participants then completed either a recognition (Experiment 1) or free recall (Experiment 2) memory test under either full or divided attention. The findings show that when attention is divided at encoding, the benefit for aloud words remains for both recognition and free recall. When attention is divided at test, however, the benefit for aloud words remains for recognition but is absent for free recall. Overall, these results suggest that the distinctive information associated with produced words is encoded automatically, but it may not be accessible at test under attentionally demanding conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".