Mechanisms underlying the production effect for singing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production effect is defined as better memory for items that were read aloud compared with items that were read silently. Quinlan and Taylor (2013) expanded the findings of the production effect by demonstrating that singing items produces even better recognition performance than reading aloud, and argued that this was due to enhanced relative distinctiveness. The current study tested three alternative accounts. In Experiment 1, we explored whether singing results in a larger production effect because it is deemed more bizarre than reading aloud. To address this, we tested a sample for whom singing does not seem bizarre: experienced singers. They also showed better recognition of items that were sung compared with those that were read aloud. In Experiment 2, we determined that singing appears to take longer than either reading aloud or reading silently; however, the possible effect of production time was further explored in Experiment 3. We did this by instructing participants to sing quickly, read aloud slowly, or read silently. Altering relative production times resulted in no discernible changes in subsequent recognition performance. Finally, in Experiment 4, we explored whether singing might strengthen the memory trace relative to reading aloud. We tested this by manipulating the production instruction between subjects. This eliminated the recognition advantage for both reading items aloud as well as for singing them aloud. Having ruled out these alternatives, we argue that singing improves subsequent recognition because it offers more distinctive elements than either reading aloud or reading silently. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".