About this Research Topic
The distinction between identification and production processes posits that the amount of attentional resources required by implicit memory tasks during the encoding phase should vary as a function of the number of solutions admitted by retrieval cues (Gabrieli, Vaidya, Stone, Francis, Thompson-Schill, Fleischman, Tinklenberg, Yesavage, & Wilson, 1999). According to this framework, priming in low-competition tasks, in which each retrieval cue is compatible with only one correct response (e.g., lexical decision), is expected to require fewer encoding-phase attentional resources than priming in high-competition tasks, in which each retrieval cue is compatible with multiple plausible solutions (e.g., word-stem completion).
The identification and production framework has relevant theoretical implications. First, it challenges the assumptions of the Transfer-Appropriate-Processing framework (Morris, Bransford & Franks, 1977), which are at the heart of the well-known dissociation between memory tasks based on data-driven (perceptual) and conceptually-driven processes (Mulligan, 1996; Spataro, Cestari, & Rossi-Arnaud, 2011). Moreover, the two accounts lead to very different expectations with respect to the pattern of priming deficits to be found in healthy older adults (Geraci, 2006; Prull, 2004), and clinical populations such as patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Fleischman, Monti, Dwornik, Moro, Bennett, & Gabrieli, 2001) or schizophrenia (Schwartz, Rosse, & Deutsch, 1993; Soler, Ruiz, Vargas, Dasí, & Fuentes, 2011).
This Research Topic is intended to draw together the latest experimental, neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies dealing with the role of perceptual/conceptual vs identification/production processes in implicit and explicit memory. Our aims are: a) to provide an updated overview about the validity of these two distinctions; b) to understand the impact of response competition in implicit and explicit memory tasks; c) to stimulate the discussion about comprehensive theoretical frameworks; and c) to highlight the neural underpinnings of perceptual/conceptual and identification/production priming. We welcome different types of contributions, including original research articles, reviews, brief commentaries, and meta-analyses. Studies on clinical populations or using ERPs and neuroimaging techniques are particularly welcomed.
The identification and production framework has relevant theoretical implications. First, it challenges the assumptions of the Transfer-Appropriate-Processing framework (Morris, Bransford & Franks, 1977), which are at the heart of the well-known dissociation between memory tasks based on data-driven (perceptual) and conceptually-driven processes (Mulligan, 1996; Spataro, Cestari, & Rossi-Arnaud, 2011). Moreover, the two accounts lead to very different expectations with respect to the pattern of priming deficits to be found in healthy older adults (Geraci, 2006; Prull, 2004), and clinical populations such as patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Fleischman, Monti, Dwornik, Moro, Bennett, & Gabrieli, 2001) or schizophrenia (Schwartz, Rosse, & Deutsch, 1993; Soler, Ruiz, Vargas, Dasí, & Fuentes, 2011).
This Research Topic is intended to draw together the latest experimental, neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies dealing with the role of perceptual/conceptual vs identification/production processes in implicit and explicit memory. Our aims are: a) to provide an updated overview about the validity of these two distinctions; b) to understand the impact of response competition in implicit and explicit memory tasks; c) to stimulate the discussion about comprehensive theoretical frameworks; and c) to highlight the neural underpinnings of perceptual/conceptual and identification/production priming. We welcome different types of contributions, including original research articles, reviews, brief commentaries, and meta-analyses. Studies on clinical populations or using ERPs and neuroimaging techniques are particularly welcomed.
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
