TY - JOUR
T1 - Motor engagement enhances incidental memory for task-irrelevant items
AU - Shimane, Daisuke
AU - Tanaka, Takumi
AU - Watanabe, Katsumi
AU - Tanaka, Kanji
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (no. JP21K20303) to DS; Grants-in-Aid by the Nakayama Hayao Foundation for Science, Technology and Culture, Japan (no. R1-B-56), and JSPS KAKENHI (no. JP20K22269) to TT; JSPS KAKENHI (no. JP18H03505) to KT; and JSPS KAKENHI (nos. JP17H00753 and JP22H00090) and Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) Moonshot Research and Development (no. JPMJMS2012) to KW.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Shimane, Tanaka, Watanabe and Tanaka.
PY - 2022/8/16
Y1 - 2022/8/16
N2 - Actions shape what we see and memorize. A previous study suggested the interaction between motor and memory systems by showing that memory encoding for task-irrelevant items was enhanced when presented with motor-response cues. However, in the studies on the attentional boost effect, it has been revealed that detection of the target stimulus can lead to memory enhancement without requiring overt action. Thus, the direct link between the action and memory remains unclear. To exclude the effect of the target detection process as a potential confounder, this study assessed the benefit of action for memory by separating items from the response cue in time. In our pre-registered online experiment (N = 142), participants responded to visual Go cues by pressing a key (i.e., motor task) or counting (i.e., motor-neutral cognitive task) while ignoring No-go cues. In each trial, two task-irrelevant images were sequentially presented after the cue disappearance. After encoding the Go/No-go tasks, participants performed a surprise recognition memory test for those images. Importantly, we quantified the impact of overt execution of the action by comparing memories with and without motor response and the impact of covert motor processes (e.g., preparation and planning of action) by comparing memory between the motor and cognitive tasks. The results showed no memory differences between Go and No-go trials in the motor task. This means that the execution itself was not critical for memory enhancement. However, the memory performance in the motor No-go trials was higher than that in the cognitive No-go trials, only for the items presented away from the cues in time. Therefore, engaging the motor task itself could increase incidental memory for the task-irrelevant items compared to a passive viewing situation. We added empirical evidence on the online interaction between action and memory encoding. These memory advantages could be especially brought in action preparation and planning. We believe this fact may expand our present understanding of everyday memory, such as active learning.
AB - Actions shape what we see and memorize. A previous study suggested the interaction between motor and memory systems by showing that memory encoding for task-irrelevant items was enhanced when presented with motor-response cues. However, in the studies on the attentional boost effect, it has been revealed that detection of the target stimulus can lead to memory enhancement without requiring overt action. Thus, the direct link between the action and memory remains unclear. To exclude the effect of the target detection process as a potential confounder, this study assessed the benefit of action for memory by separating items from the response cue in time. In our pre-registered online experiment (N = 142), participants responded to visual Go cues by pressing a key (i.e., motor task) or counting (i.e., motor-neutral cognitive task) while ignoring No-go cues. In each trial, two task-irrelevant images were sequentially presented after the cue disappearance. After encoding the Go/No-go tasks, participants performed a surprise recognition memory test for those images. Importantly, we quantified the impact of overt execution of the action by comparing memories with and without motor response and the impact of covert motor processes (e.g., preparation and planning of action) by comparing memory between the motor and cognitive tasks. The results showed no memory differences between Go and No-go trials in the motor task. This means that the execution itself was not critical for memory enhancement. However, the memory performance in the motor No-go trials was higher than that in the cognitive No-go trials, only for the items presented away from the cues in time. Therefore, engaging the motor task itself could increase incidental memory for the task-irrelevant items compared to a passive viewing situation. We added empirical evidence on the online interaction between action and memory encoding. These memory advantages could be especially brought in action preparation and planning. We believe this fact may expand our present understanding of everyday memory, such as active learning.
KW - action execution
KW - action preparation
KW - action-induced memory enhancement
KW - attentional boost effect
KW - episodic memory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137980400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85137980400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914877
DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914877
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85137980400
SN - 1664-1078
VL - 13
JO - Frontiers in Psychology
JF - Frontiers in Psychology
M1 - 914877
ER -