Enactment versus observation: item-specific and relational processing in goal-directed action sequences (and lists of single actions)

PLoS One. 2014 Jun 13;9(6):e99985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099985. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

What are the memory-related consequences of learning actions (such as "apply the patch") by enactment during study, as compared to action observation? Theories converge in postulating that enactment encoding increases item-specific processing, but not the processing of relational information. Typically, in the laboratory enactment encoding is studied for lists of unrelated single actions in which one action execution has no overarching purpose or relation with other actions. In contrast, real-life actions are usually carried out with the intention to achieve such a purpose. When actions are embedded in action sequences, relational information provides efficient retrieval cues. We contrasted memory for single actions with memory for action sequences in three experiments. We found more reliance on relational processing for action-sequences than single actions. To what degree can this relational information be used after enactment versus after the observation of an actor? We found indicators of superior relational processing after observation than enactment in ordered pair recall (Experiment 1A) and in emerging subjective organization of repeated recall protocols (recall runs 2-3, Experiment 2). An indicator of superior item-specific processing after enactment compared to observation was recognition (Experiment 1B, Experiment 2). Similar net recall suggests that observation can be as good a learning strategy as enactment. We discuss possible reasons why these findings only partly converge with previous research and theorizing.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Goals
  • Humans
  • Memory / physiology*
  • Mental Recall / physiology
  • Psychomotor Performance / physiology
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

The research was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the senior author (German Science Foundation, Ste 938/7-1,-2). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.