Which of the following is true of shallow processing in memory?

*
Cited by sarkariresultonline.info


You watching: Which of the following is true of shallow processing in memory?

*
Similars in sarkariresultonline.info
*



See more: What Does Closed Section Mean When Registering For Classes, Registration Errors

Psychology & Neuroscience

On-line version ISSN 1983-3288

Psychol. Neurosci. vol.4 no.3 Rio de Janeiro July/Dec. 2011

https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2011.3.006


See more: Analyzing Data In Graphs Or Charts Allows You To _____., Analyzing Data In Graphs Or Charts Allows You To

BEHAVIOR/SYSTEMS/COGNITION Levels of processing: the evolution of a framework Roberta Ekuni; Leonarperform José Vaz; Orlancarry out Francisco Amodeo Bueno Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil Correspondence ABSTRACT Although the levels of handling framework have evolved over its practically 40 years of existence, the significance of the principle has not changed from the original. The original write-up publimelted in 1972 suggests that in the encoding stage of a stimulus, tright here is a collection of handling hierarchies ranging from the shallowest level (perceptual processing—the subject initially perceives the physical and sensory qualities of the stimulus) to the deepest level (semantic processing—related to pattern recognition and extraction of meaning). The depth handling is associated through high levels of retention and permanent memory traces. After comprehensive research study and also criticism, the authors included numerous concepts that aided in a far better expertise of levels of processing frame and the items that subjects have the right to respeak to such as transfer-appropriate handling and also durable encoding. However, there are still some gaps in this structure that contact for brand-new clinical investigations, varying from speculative paradigms with lists of words through healthy or pathological conditions subject to neuroimaging studies to confirm, refute or enhance the framework. The aim of this short article is to review the publications (articles and also book chapters) dating from the original post to the existing day to better understand the mnemonic process in regards to levels of handling and to highlight some of its contributions. Keywords: levels of handling, memory, cognition.

Summary In everyday life, among the many type of techniques offered to remember things are repeating or analysis the same content numerous times and also seeking to create relationships among the information to be stored, for instance, by drafting a brief story or creating a psychological photo. But wbelow perform these tactics come from? Which ones work? What helps us retrieve the information we want to remember? The aim of this short article is to evaluation the literature and also answer these inquiries in regards to levels of handling (LOP), which is a commonly provided idea in memory studies. According to Tulving (2002), LOP is a frame, not a theory; a structure is a lot bigger and deserve to be even more vague than a theory. The article that presented the term "levels of processing," published by Craik and Lockhart in 1972, is one of themany extensively cited cognitive psychologyarticles in the literature. According to theWeb of Science, because the publication of Craik and also Lockhart nearly 40 years back, >3,500 write-ups have actually cited the original article (accessed July 2011). Richardson-Klavehn, Gardiner, and Ramponi (2002) noted that few ideas have prstove to be as durable as this one. Table 1 reflects a review of the evolution of this framework.
*
In the original article, Craik and also Lockhart (1972) imply that it is not the intention to memorize somepoint, however the stimulus-encoding procedure that is vital for future retrieval of the stimulus. For a much better knowledge of this, we must assume the extensively accepted principle that memory is composed of three major stages: encoding (acquisition of information), storage (maintenance of the information) and also retrieval(use of the indevelopment that was stored) (Atkinchild & Shiffrin, 1968). Craik and Lockhart (1972) proclaimed that in the encoding phase tright here is a series of processing hierarchies. During the shallower handling level (perceptual processing), the topic initially perceives the physical and sensory qualities of the stimulus; the deepest level (semantic processing) is concerned pattern recognition and also extraction of meaning, with a greater emphasis on semantic evaluation than in shenable handling. Memory traces are developed as an outcome of these procedures. To straight the various levels or degrees of handling, work are employed during encoding that are preferentially oriented to a perceptual or semantic processing of stimuli. Craik (2002) proposed that semantic evaluation, i.e., even more "deep" processing, is linked via better levels of retention and also long-term memory traces (Figure 1).
*
The principle of LOP emerged as an attempt to describe the mnemonic mechanism. In 1975, a series of experiments emerged by Craik and Tulving explored additionally the LOP frame. In these experiments, lists of words were shown to the subject; for each list, different guided work were embraced to regulate the "depth" of processing supplied to encode the words. For instance, in shpermit handling, the subject answered questions concerning the word"s typechallenge (for example, is the word "HOUSE" written in capital letters?); in intermediate handling, the subject answered inquiries about rhyme (for instance, does the word "house" rhyme through "pencil"?); and also in deep processing, the questions were directed toward the word"s semantic content (for instance, does the word "house" fit into this sentence: "The ______ has a beautiful window"?). The results of the experiments made the authors realize that once the answer of the handling was compatible, for instance, "PEN is an object provided to write? – YES", it made the taracquire words be even more elaborated and much better rereferred to as than via incompatible concerns. That concept is known as compatibility (Craik & Tulving, 1975). The LOP structure have the right to likewise be explored utilizing only 2 levels: shpermit and deep processing. For instance, in the study by Vaz et al. (manumanuscript in preparation), a list of the same words was processed in different ways by 2 groups of subjects through the assist of 2 conexisting tasks: (a) word appreciation (deep processing—the subject review words aloud as they were shown on a computer display screen and also then judged their significance, responding through one of following options: "like", "indifferent" or "dislike", for example, the topic might check out the word "letter" and say "like"); (b) counting of closed spaces (shpermit processing-inthis task, after reading the word aloud, the topic was asked to count the variety of closed spaces in the letters that create the word, for instance, the word "letter" has actually two closed spaces, checked out in the 2 letters "e"). The closed spaces counting task required the topics to focus on the physical or perceptual characteristics of the stimuli while the significance job compelled them to focus on their definition. At the finish of each list, the topics were asked to openly respeak to the words presented. The group who performed the deeper handling task rereferred to as significantly even more words than the team who offered shallow handling. This outcome was equivalent to that oboffered in other research studies (Craik & Tulving, 1975; Moscovitch & Craik, 1976; Chaallows, Velichkvsky, & Craik, 1996). Morris, Bransford, and also Franks (1977) showed that semantic handling is much better than phonological handling, but only once the retrieval job needs the remembrance of interpretation. When the retrieval task needs rhyme recognition, phonological processing gives remarkable results. For instance, the guided job may be to verify whether the tarobtain word fits right into the phrase (as in the semantic job "______ has wings": BIRD; response: "Yes"), or a guided task can be to verify whether the targain word rhymes with the preceding word (as in the phonological job "______ rhymes with mat": HAT; response: "Yes"). At the end of the guided task, a memory job is brought out via cues that present only the expression of the semantic task (so that the topic recalls the target word; for instance, BIRD), or just the phrase of the phonetic job (so that the topic recalls the target word; for example, HAT). Hence, if the respeak to job is congruent with the guided job, the memory is facilitated, even for topics who percreate the shallower, phonetic task. That is, the best processing level is the one that fits the requirements of the retrieval task. Or, in other words, it is much better to test what the subject was induced to learn. Following this principle, Morris et al. (1977) proposed an different to LOP recognized as transfer-proper processing. This problem, that was initially a criticism of LOP, was later on included to this framework. Similarly, Tulving (1979) occurred the encoding specificity principle, which is an idea that focuses on the compatibility of the cue provided in recall with the processing done in encoding (i.e., in between the encoding operation and also the retrieval cues). According to Tulving (1979), this concept is compatible through LOP bereason the recevery one of graphic, semantic or phonetic aspects is exceptional as soon as encoded by physical, phonetic or semantic features, respectively. However, the adoption of an encoding form that is compatible via respeak to does not prevent the LOP effect; i.e., semantic (deeper) encoding causes an all at once higher propercent of retained memory than more shenable kinds of encoding (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Lockhart and also Craik (1990) introduced the term "durable encoding" to describe that levels of handling influence the transfer-appropriate processing in the feeling that a much more deeply encoded trait becomes easily accessible to even more cues at the moment of recall. Therefore, Craik (2002) says that the concept of transfer-appropriate processing is complementary to LOP, i.e., that encoding and also retrieval are incorporated in such a means that the initial procedures recognize the qualitative nature of the trait encoded, and also deeper encodings are associated through better retrieval potential in an environment conducive to recall. For instance, as soon as a student is researching a specific principle, he/she seeks to develop multiple associations via it, structure a broad and interassociated "semantic network-related." Therefore, when retrieval is required (for example, in the time of an examination), he/she will certainly have a broader "range" of cues available to respeak to the content. As Craik (2002) presented, one of the major contributions of the LOP frame is the knowledge of respeak to as a process and also an task of the mind as opposed to structural principles in which memory traces are entities that have to be tried to find and reactivated. As Tulving (2001) affirms, memory is not sindicate a rebuilding in which the subject picks up pieces of a mind puzzle and also reconstructs the recollection; fairly, it is pure building, in which the topic have to rebuildthe episode, which is why the memory is so susceptible to error. This might describe the old adage that if you tell a lie regularly sufficient, it becomes reality. Craik (2002) points out that deeper handling does not necessarily require more time than shpermit processing. However before, deeper procedures need more attention (Treisman, 1964; Craik & Byrd, 1982). Divided attention outcomes in shalreduced encoding, yet this connection is modulated by the interpretation of the stimulus and also by thefield of expertise (i.e., the level of content knowledge) of the perchild doing the handling. A question was increased by an experiment by Vaz et al. (manuscript in preparation) that compared the effects of deep handling in recevery one of a list of words with no guided job at all and with a shpermit guided task (open up letters counting). The perceptual guided instruction resulted in a poorer performance as intended, but the semantically guided instruction produced the very same level of performance as no instruction at all. These outcomes are construed as a) the typical method of processing words is semantic; b) the perceptual job divides attention from meaning and hence decreases recontact. Bellezza,Cheesmale,and also Reddy (1977) argued that after a specific amount of semantic handling (deep processing), extra semantic processing does not boost the probcapacity of word retrieval. So, when the subject taken the meaning of the word, deep handling is not crucial. However, experiments show that there is a difference at the same LOP, for instance, at the semantic handling one can examine if a word fits on a phrase or appreciate it (Roediger&Gallo, 2002). This last issue can be appreciated under the heading of elaboration, even more integrated by Craik (2002). Ekuni, Vaz, and also Bueno (manuscript in preparation) brought out an experiment through healthy young topics using LOP manipulation and also perceptual manipulation (some words were created in colored ink). The outcomes showed that the words deeply processed were much better recalled than shallowly processed words—a typical LOP result. It additionally proved a facilitation impact of perceptually manipulated words on totally free respeak to, but no interaction between form of handling and perceptual manipulation. These results suggest that perceptual elements of a stimulus that distinguish it from others in the exact same set might have actually an auxiliary duty in cost-free recevery one of the collection, but the essential concern is the interpretation of these stimuli, arguing that the pecking order of LOP is crucial. With the arrival of new modern technologies, Nyberg (2002) carried out a testimonial in which levels of handling were analyzed in relation to neuroimaging and also computed tomography (CT)-positron emission tomography (PET) scan studies were provided to verify the correlation in between these research studies and the LOP framework. As previously stated, Craik and also Lockhart (1972) argued that the memory map is an effect of handling during encoding; Nyberg (2002) says that according to the overlap of encoding-retrieval as soon as indevelopment is reextended, the very same brain location that was activated in the time of encoding should be retriggered. Nyberg (2002) presented evidence saying that some brain areas that are triggered during encoding are reset off throughout retrieval. Hence, as in the study by Craik and also Lockhart (1972), the memory map depends on exactly how the content was encoded. NEUROIMAGE OF LOP According to the LOP structure, the various levels of processing (shenable or deep) have to be associated with different brain task patterns, and deep processing have to have actually even more durable traces (Walla et al.,2001). Nyberg (2002) showed that activity in the prefrontal cortex and also the medial tempdental area is connected via deeper levels of processing and also better performance on memory tests. Kapur et al. (1994) carried out a research with PET scan to create correlationships in between the activation of different cortical locations and also the job provided to encode the stimuli. They offered 2 guided work for this: (a) detecting the presence or lack of the letter "a" (perceptual/shallow processing) and (b) categorizing the word as indicating somepoint living or inanimate (semantic/deep processing). A greater activation of the reduced left prefrontal cortex in the semantic work was viewed, indicating involvement of this cortical area in semantic decision jobs. Criticism of the lop framework Lockhart and Craik (1990) suggested two primary forms of criticism of the LOP framework: a) conceptual and methodological worries and b) more empiricalworries,i.e., speculative assistance for hypotheses suggested by the LOP frame. Regarding the initially, Baddeley (1978) and Eysenk (1978a) wondered about the pecking order of levels (from shallowest to deepest), suggesting that tbelow is not a addressed series of processing stperiods. Baddeley (1978) additionally pointed out that there is not an independent technique that researchers have the right to usage to measure how deep or shpermit the handling is in an experiment. However, Lockhart and Craik (1978, 1990) claimed that the most vital aspect is not the sequence of handling stperiods but the achieved analysis patterns. In accordance with Roediger and Gallo (2002), the term "levels of processing" is currently offered even more generally to emphasize the truth that the usage of various forms of processing throughout encoding gives various levels of memory performance. Anvarious other criticism from Eysenk (1978b) is that LOP is not compatible via the transfer-proper handling (Morris et al., 1977) or encoding-specificity principle (Tulving & Thomboy, 1973) because the LOP framework does not renders recommendations to retrieval problems. As viewed over, this type of criticism was responded to by incorporating the conditions of retrieval in the LOP framework. Nelson (1977) criticized the LOP framework bereason, theoretically, repetition does not influence recall when considering the very same level of handling, but his experiments showed that repetition at the phonemic level facilitates memory. Throughout his experiment, 3 groups of topics processed words at the phonemic level: a) one repetition of 12 items; b) 2 massed repetition; c) two spaced repetition. The massed and also dispersed repetition was much better than one repetition. For Lockhart and Craik (1990), repetition itself does not facilitate recall, however tbelow are qualitative types of reverberation that may influence memory. Although the second debate is solid, for repetition tright here is sufficient proof that it does facilitate recontact. Mnemonic strategies As discussed earlier, wanting to remember somepoint is not the most necessary variable in being able to remember somepoint. In 1975, Craik and also Tulving carried out an experiment in which subjects were passist for every word they could recall. Three blocks of 20 words were presented; for each block, the subject review the word and responded to a question based upon the handling used: perceptual handling (for instance, is the word published in capital letters?), phonological handling (rhyme; for instance, does the word rhyme via "feet"?); and semantic processing (category: for example, is the word a type of fruit?). For each type of processing,the experimenter setan amount to be passist. The words that were processed even more deeply (categories) were recalled even more frequently than those that were processed in a shpermit way (perceptually, or utilizing rhyme), even once the subjects received more money to recall words in the shenable team. Some topics reported that they wanted to recall the words that were worth even more yet redubbed more words that had actually been processed even more deeply. In a later work-related, Craik (2002) made a differentiation in between depthand also elaboration, although these procedures are related. The former describes the qualitative form of processing performed (levels-extension: from shallowest to deepest), i.e., basing processing on the physical, phonetic or semantic qualities of the indevelopment. Elaboration refers to the level to which each type of handling wasenriched during encoding and also it integprices the brand-new item into currently arranged basic understanding structures or context cues, allowing the creation of cues that facilitate recoexceptionally. For instance, identifying the category to which the stimulus belongs (dog–animal; freezer–object discovered in the kitchen) or establishing relationships via previous events (associating "freezer" with the memory of the freezer in one"s home) are elaboration methods that facilitate the recevery one of these words because they enwell-off the stimulus to be remembered. Regarding the strategy of creating a story approximately the content to be remembered, Bellezza et al. (1977) gave two teams of world lists of unrelated words. One team had actually to check out the word and also develop a sentence, whereas the various other group read the word and also formed a systematic sentence pertained to a sentence developed earlier, thus creating a story via the sentences. The group who created the story redubbed even more words than the team that formed unassociated sentences. Why? Mandler (2002), in hisorganizationaltheory of memory, states that if a subject organizes ideaseffectivelyin the time of encoding, the indevelopment will more than likely be obtainable at the moment of recall. In enhancement, Einstein and also Hunt (1980) said that company theory directs attention to the partnership in between list items, whereas the LOP structure requires that the topic emphasis on items individually. However before, as soon as these two types of processing—company and LOP—are supplied together, recontact is positively affected. For Mandler (2002), LOP partially incorpoprices the basic procedures of organization. Indeed, when semantic handling is correct, it leads to a much better rerepertoire than attending only to nonsemantic aspects of the stimuli (Gardiner, 1974; Hyde & Jenkins, 1969; Demb et al., 1995). As Bellezza et al. (1977) remind us, words are basically semantic units, therefore requiring semantic memory to be rereferred to as. Application oflop manipulation in neuropsychological studies The manipulation of various levels of handling is commonly provided in neuropsychological researches of healthy people as well as in study via patients through specific pathologies. These studies often aim to answer inquiries around the levels of handling structure or to check out how it behaves in certain instances and also even for expertise the memory process as in the examine by Sheridan and Reingold (in press). These authors used LOP manipulation via their new remember–recognize paradigm to respond to the doubters that claim that deep processing increases just "remember" but not "know" trials. They discovered that deep handling enhanced both "remember" and also "know" proportions. LOP manipulation was exceptionally valuable in this examine to prove the authors" hypothesis. Other studies sought to understand the mnemonic process such as the examine by Loaiza, McCabe, Youngblood, Rose and also Myerboy (2011). These authors used functioning memory and episodic memory work and also uncovered that LOP impacts both immediate and also delayed recall, which have the right to help researchers understand also some models of memory. Hamann and Squire (1996) performed a examine utilizing amnesic patients and a regulate group. In the research, the authors manipulated levels of processing to see if they affected priming (a kind of implicit memory in which prior exposure to a stimulus influences the response to another stimulus ) in perceptual tasks. These authors oboffered that compared via the control group, amnesic patients did not exhilittle bit LOP effects throughout priming tasks for completing words. Thus, this research via amnesic patients confirmed that LOP does have actually an result on the priming of perceptual jobs. In another study performed via patients via unilateral medial tempdental lobe epilepsy, Lespinet-Najibet al.(2004) investigated the duty of the ideal and left temporal lobes in LOP work. The authors concluded that the appropriate temporal lobe is even more specialized in semantic handling bereason patients with best temporal lobe epilepsy proved deficits in the free-recall test phase of the examine, which forced semantic (deep)handling. Toichi and also Kami (2002) studied autistic patients via the LOP manipulation. Such researches aim to verify just how LOP behaves in specific instances. In this examine, the authors verified that there is no LOP effect in autism, and that the autistic subject"s episodic memory performance was superior to that of the control team. Comparable studies of patients through attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Hale, Bookheimer, McGough, Phillips, & McCracken, 2007) and dyslexia (Pernet, Valdois, Celsis, & Démonet, 2006) deserve to additionally be cited. Troyer, Häfliger, Cadieux, and Craik (2006), in a research entailing an elderly populace, manipulated levels of processing for finding out names and also deals with and concluded that deep processing facilitates the discovering of new names, thus saying that this form of treatment coupled via other interventions deserve to aid elderly topics learn brand-new names. Final considerations Throughout practically 40 years of existence, the original idea of Craik and Lockhart (1972) has undergone changes and development. The contribution of the LOP structure to the research of huguy memory cannot be dismissed. The best contributions, according to Lockhart and also Craik (1990), resulted from research studies that are more procedurally than structurallyoriented,for this reason supporting the idea that ​​memory is not stored in memorystores and also that stores identify the success of retention. Such contributions take into consideration remembering as a processing and as the LOP predict, the processing provided in the time of encoding stage is even more necessary to remember, so memory is seen as pure construction (Tulving, 2001). However before, some questions reprimary unanswered. Roedigerand Gallo (2002) mentioned some of these problems. For circumstances, why, even under problems in which the subject knows that he/she will have to remember words, are there levels of handling effect? Why do variations among the same level of handling (for example, variations in semantic processing—inspect if a word fits on a phrase; say if you choose or disfavor the word) differentially influence memory? Whycansubjects recall some words that are superficially processed? We can hypothedimension about possible answers. For example, there may be variations on the same level of processing because various jobs call for various levels of cognitive initiative. Hence, in a deep handling task, there might be work entailing more cognitive effort than others; therefore, the item will be even more deeply processed. In relation to the fact that subjects respeak to some words with shallow processing, it may be due to the reality that analysis the word might instantly accessibility its semantic definition (Kirsner, 1973). However, to day, there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. The level of evaluation of a specific stimulus depends upon several components such as its meaning, the attention devoted to its perception, the intuitions and eactivities of the subject concerning that particular stimulus, his/her incentive, and so on (Kapur et al., 1994). But the LOP structure involved echo Bartlett"s (1932) "effort after meaning" by the recalling mind. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa perform Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), the Associação Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa (AFIP) and also the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). References Atkinchild, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed device and also its regulate procedures. In K.W. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of finding out and motivation: Advances in study and concept. (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press. < Links > Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart"s framework for memory research study. Psychological Resee, 85. 139-152. < Links > Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A examine in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. < Links > Bellezza, F. S., Cheesguy, F. L., & Reddy, B. G. (1977). Organization and also semantic elaboration in complimentary recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human being Learning and also Memory, 3, 539-550. < Links > Bellezza, F. S., Richards, D. L., & Geiselguy, R. E. (1976). Semantic handling and also organization in totally free respeak to. Memory and also Cognition, 4, 415-421. < Links > Challis, B. H., Velichkovsky, B. M., & Craik, F. I. M. (1996). Levels-of-processing effects on a variety of memory tasks: New findings and also theoretical implications. Consciousness and also Cognition, 5, 142-164. < Links > Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, current and also future? Memory, 10(5/6), 305-318. < Links > Craik, F. I. M., & Byrd, M. (1982). Aging and also cognitive deficits: The duty of attentional resources. In F. I. M. Craik & S. E. Trehub (Eds.). Aging and cognitive procedures (pp. 191-211). New York: Plenum. < Links > Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A structure for memory study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. < Links > Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and also the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experipsychological Psychology: General, 104, 268-294. < Links > Demb, J. B., Desmond, J. E., Wagner, A. D., Vaidya, C. J., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1995). Semantic encoding and also retrieval in the left inferior prefrontal cortex. A sensible MRI research of task-challenge and also procedure specificity. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 5870-5878. < Links > Einstein, G. O., & Hunt, R. R. (1980). Levels of handling and organization: Additive impacts of individual-item and relational handling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human being Learning and Memory, 6(5), 588-598. < Links > Ekuni, R., Vaz, L .J., & Bueno, O. F. A. (n.d.). Effects of levels of processing on recevery one of perceptual manipulated words. Manumanuscript in preparation. < Links > Eysenck, M.W. (1978a). Levels of processing: A critique. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 157-169. < Links > Eysenck, M. W. (1978b). Levels of processing: A reply to Lockhart and also Craik. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 177-178. < Links > Gardiner, J. M. (1974). Levels of processing in word recognition and subsequent free recontact. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 101-105. < Links > Hale, T. S., Bookheimer, S., McGough, J. J., Phillips, J. M., & McCracken, J. T. (2007). Atypical brain activation during simple & complicated levels of processing in adults ADHD: An fMRI research. Journal of Attention Disorders, 11(2), 125-140. < Links > Hamann, S. B., & Squire, L. R. (1996). Level-of-handling impacts in word-completion priming: A neuromental study. Journal of Experipsychological Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 933-947. < Links > Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1969). Differential impacts of incidental work on the company of recevery one of a list of very connected words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 472-481. < Links > Kapur, S., Craik, F. I. M, Tulving, E., Wilboy, A. A., Houle, S., & Brown, G. M. (1994). Neuroanatomical correlates of encoding in episodic memory: Levels of processing impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA of America, 91, 2008-2011. < Links > Kirsner, K. (1973). An evaluation of the visual component in acknowledgment memory for verbal stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 1(4), 449-453. < Links > Lespinet-Najib, V., N"Kaoua, B., Sauzéon, H., Bresson, C., Rougier, A., & Claverie, B. (2004). Levels of processing via free and cued respeak to and unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain and Language, 89, 83-90. < Links > Loaiza, V. M., McCabe, D. P., Youngblood, J. L., Rose, N. S., & Myerchild, J. (2011). The influence of levels of handling on recall from functioning memory and delayed respeak to work. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and also Cognition 37(5), 1258-1263. < Links > Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1978) Levels of processing: A reply to Eysenck. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 171-175. < Links > Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a structure for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 87-112. < Links > Mandler, G. (2002). Organisation: What levels of processing are levels of. Memory, 10(5/6), 333-338. < Links > Moscovitch, M., & Craik, F. I. M. (1976). Depth of processing, retrieval cues, and uniqueness of encoding as variable in recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 447-458. < Links > Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of handling versus transfer-appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and also Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533. < Links > Nelson, T. O. (1997). Repetition and also depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and also Verbal Behavior, 16, 151-171. < Links > Nyberg, L. (2002). Levels of processing: A watch from practical brain imaging. Memory, 10(5/6), 345-348. < Links > Pernet, C., Valdois, S., Celsis, P., & Démonet, J. F. (2006). Lateral masking, levels of handling and stimulus category: A comparative study between normal and also dyslexic readers. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2374-2385. < Links > Richardson-Klavehn, A., Gardiner, J. M., & Ramponi, C. (2002). Level of processing and the process-dissociation procedure: Elusiveness of null results on estimates of automatic retrieval. Memory, 10(5/6), 349-364. < Links > Roediger, H. L., III, & Gallo, D. A. (2002). Levels of processing: Some unanswered inquiries. In: M. Naveh-Benjamin, M. Moscovitch, & H. L. Roediger (Eds). Perspectives on humale memory and cognitive aging: Essays in honour of Fergus Craik (pp. 28-47). New York: Psychology Press. < Links > Roediger, H. L., III, Gallo, D. A., & Geraci, L. (2002). Processing viewpoints to cognition: The catalyst from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory, 10(5/6), 319-332. < Links > Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. M. (in press). Levels of processing influences both rearsenal and also familiarity: Evidence from a modified remember–know paradigm. Consciousness and also Cognition doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.022< Links >Squire, L. R., & Kandel, E. R. (2003). Memória: da mente às moléculas. São Paulo: ArtMed. < Links > Toichi, M., & Kamio, Y. (2002). Long-term memory and levels-of-processing in autism. Neuropsychology, 40, 964-969. < Links > Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irappropriate messeras in selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and also Verbal Behavior, 3, 449-459. < Links > Tulving, E. & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval process in episodic memory. Psychological Review 80, 352-373. < Links > Tulving, E., (1979). Relation between encoding specificity and also levels of handling. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of handling in humale memory (pp. 405-428). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. < Links > Tulving, E. (2001). Episodic memory and prevalent sense: How far apart? Philosophical Transactivity of Royal Society London B, 356, 1505-1515. < Links > Tulving, E. (2002). Does memory encoding exist? In M. Naveh-Benjamin, M. Moscovitch, & H. L. Roediger, III (Eds.). Perspectives on humale memory and also cognitive aging: Essays in Honor of Fergus Craik (pp. 6-27). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. < Links > Vaz, L. J., Oliveira, L. G., Oliveira, M. G. M., Ruiz, A. M. N., Ekuni, R., Pompéia, S., & Bueno, O. F. A. (n.d.). Levels-of-processing on facilitation of recevery one of semantically, phonetically, and perceptually distinctive words. Manuscript in preparation. < Links > Walla, P., Hufnagl, B., Lindiger, G., Imhof, H, Deecke, L., & Lang, W. (2001). Left tempdental and also temporoparietal brain task relies on depth of word encoding: A magnetoencephalographic research in healthy young topics. NeuroImage, 13, 402–409. < Links >
*
Correspondence:
Dr. Orlanexecute Francisco Amodeo Bueno Department of Psychobiology- Universidade Federal de São Paulo Rua Botucatu, 862, 1º. andar – CEP: 04023-062 São Paulo–SP/Brazil. Telephone: +55 11 2149-0155. E-mail: ofabueno