显性提取和隐性提取对提取过程的影响
The Impact of Explicit and Implicit Extraction on the Extraction Process
摘要: 本研究采用先提取后表达范式，通过两个实验系统考察了提取方式与表达过程对记忆表现的影响。结果显示：(1) 在三次提取条件下，显性提取显著优于隐性提取，且该效应在即时与延时测验中均保持稳定；(2) 显性提取的优势效应在不同难度的混合材料中保持一致。上述结果表明，包含多次表达的提取任务比单纯的元认知判断更能促进记忆，不同提取方式对记忆加工的影响存在差异。本研究为解释提取练习效应的作用机制提供了新的实验证据。
Abstract: This study employed a retrieval-then-express paradigm to examine the effects of retrieval modes and the expression process on memory performance across two experiments. The results showed that: (1) under three retrieval attempts, explicit retrieval produced significantly better memory performance than implicit retrieval, and this advantage was maintained in both immediate and delayed tests; (2) the advantage of explicit retrieval remained consistent across mixed materials of varying difficulty. These findings indicate that expression plays a crucial facilitating role during retrieval, and that different retrieval modes differentially affect memory processing.
文章引用：黄正平 (2026). 显性提取和隐性提取对提取过程的影响. 心理学进展, 16(5), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2026.165246

参考文献

[1] 马小凤, 张号博, 姚歆怡, 李鹏飞, 王雨柔, 陈倩倩, 周爱保(2022). 线索强度对提取练习效应的影响机制: 来自ERP的证据. 心理科学, 45(5), 1106-1114.
[2] 欧阳芸芸(2015). 学习判断中的框架效应研究. 硕士学位论文, 杭州: 浙江师范大学.
[3] 杨丽娴, 张锦坤, 李冬静, 张俐娟(2022). 提取过程越久记忆保持越好吗?材料难度的调节作用. 心理科学, 45(3), 567-573.
[4] 张锦坤, 张俐娟(2020). 编码与提取时长对提取练习效应的影响. 心理科学, 43(4), 785-792.
[5] Akdoğan, E., Izaute, M., Danion, J., Vidailhet, P., & Bacon, E. (2016). Is Retrieval the Key? Metamemory Judgment and Testing as Learning Strategies. Memory, 24, 1390-1395.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue Strength as a Moderator of the Testing Effect: The Benefits of Elaborative Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563-1569.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Forrin, N. D., MacLeod, C. M., & Ozubko, J. D. (2012). Widening the Boundaries of the Production Effect. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1046-1055.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Gardiner, J. M., Passmore, C., Herriot, P., & Klee, H. (1977). Memory for Remembered Events: Effects of Response Mode and Response-Produced Feedback. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 45-54.[CrossRef] 
[9] Hourihan, K. L., & MacLeod, C. M. (2008). Directed Forgetting Meets the Production Effect: Distinctive Processing Is Resistant to Intentional Forgetting. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 62, 242-246.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Jönsson, F. U., Kubik, V., Larsson Sundqvist, M., Todorov, I., & Jonsson, B. (2014). How Crucial Is the Response Format for the Testing Effect? Psychological Research, 78, 623-633.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science, 319, 966-968.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Karpicke, J. D., & Zaromb, F. M. (2010). Retrieval Mode Distinguishes the Testing Effect from the Generation Effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 227-239.[CrossRef] 
[13] Kornell, N., Klein, P. J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning, but Retrieval Success (versus Failure) Does Not Matter. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 283-294.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016). Chapter Five—How Retrieval Attempts Affect Learning: A Review and Synthesis. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 183-215). Academic Press.
[15] MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The Production Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 671-685.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When People’s Judgments of Learning (Jols) Are Extremely Accurate at Predicting Subsequent Recall: The “Delayed-Jol Effect”. Psychological Science, 2, 267-271.[CrossRef] 
[17] Ozubko, J. D., Hourihan, K. L., & MacLeod, C. M. (2012). Production Benefits Learning: The Production Effect Endures and Improves Memory for Text. Memory, 20, 717-727.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Does Response Mode Affect Amount Recalled or the Magnitude of the Testing Effect? Memory & Cognition, 41, 36-48.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing Schedules of Retrieval Practice for Durable and Efficient Learning: How Much Is Enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283-302.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Rowland, C. A. (2014). The Effect of Testing versus Restudy on Retention: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Testing Effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432-1463.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Smith, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2013). Covert Retrieval Practice Benefits Retention as Much as Overt Retrieval Practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1712-1725.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Sundqvist, M. L., Mäntylä, T., & Jönsson, F. U. (2017). Assessing Boundary Conditions of the Testing Effect: On the Relative Efficacy of Covert Vs. Overt Retrieval. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article ID: 1018.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Tauber, S. K., Witherby, A. E., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2018). Does Covert Retrieval Benefit Learning of Key-Term Definitions? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 106-115.[CrossRef] 
[25] Whitten, W. B., & Bjork, R. A. (1977). Learning from Tests: Effects of Spacing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 465-478.[CrossRef]