English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Naveh-Benjamin (1987, 1988) has shown that memory for spatial location does not meet the criteria for automatic encoding as claimed by Hasher and Zacks (1979). Age, intention, concurrent processing demands, practice, strategies, and individual differences affected memory for location. These variables should have affected effortful but not automatic processing. The experiments reported in the present paper, in which a different task was used, showed that intention, practice, and concurrent processing demands did not affect memory for location. I concluded that (1) the location task used by Naveh-Benjamin included effortful subtasks and also incidental cover or concurrent processing tasks that interfered directly with performance, and (2) the variables that he manipulated may not have affected the encoding of location. The need to differentiate processes from task performance in analyzing the automaticity issue is discussed. The dominant mode for remembering location is automatic, but such information may also be remembered voluntarily.

Is memory for spatial location automatically encoded?