Congruency effects in part-list cuing inhibition.

In demonstrations of part-list cuing inhibition, subjects who are shown a subset of studied list words recall fewer noncue words than subjects not shown such part-list cues. We propose that part-list inhibition is governed in part by an incongruency principle: Inhibition occurs to the extent that part-list cues induce a retrieval framework different from that used to encode list items. In Experiment 1, word lists were studied followed by a test of free recall either without cues, or with cue words serially organized to be either congruent or incongruent with the order of studied items. In Experiments 2-4, cues consisted of every second study item in the original presentation order (congruent ones) or reordered to form famous names or familiar idioms that had been hidden in the study list (incongruent cues). More part-list inhibition was observed with incongruent cues than congruent cues in all 4 experiments.     

部分线索效应中的记忆监控

通过三个实验,利用学习时间分配作为指标,考察了学习者对部分线索效应记忆监控的状况。实验1考察被试在单次学习条件下的学习时间分配情况,结果发现被试在两种条件下所使用的学习时间没有明显差异。这说明在一次学习后被试还不能对部分线索的消极作用进行有效控制。实验2中,经过多次学习后,被试在部分线索条件下使用了更多的学习时间。实验3在自控步调学习前加入回溯性任务难度判断任务,结果发现经过一次学习,部分线索组和自由回忆组的判断值虽无显著差异,但部分线索组的自控步调学习时间显著长于自由回忆组,并且其回忆成绩也显著提高,说明回溯性任务难度判断过程本身是学习时间分配的制约因素。研究说明,为了加速主体对部分线索的消极影响的控制,引导主体对学习任务进行难度判断是一种有效的手段。     

图片部分线索效应的学习时间分配的发展

部分线索效应指让学习者学习一系列材料, 在随后的测试阶段, 给学习者提供先前所学材料的一部分作为提取线索, 让其回忆剩余的材料, 回忆成绩反而比没有提取线索时回忆成绩差的现象。通过3个实验, 以图片为实验材料, 考察了图片部分线索效应学习时间分配的发展特点。实验1考察了图片部分线索效应的边界条件, 结果发现：图片学习中, 以物体名称为线索时, 不存在部分线索效应; 而以图片为线索时, 存在部分线索效应。结果表明：跨域线索是图片部分线索效应的边界条件。实验2利用图片作线索, 考察了图片部分线索效应的发展特点, 结果发现：图片学习中, 不同年龄被试均存在部分线索效应。结果表明：年龄不是图片部分线索效应的边界条件。实验3考察不同年龄被试对部分线索消极作用的记忆监控的发展变化趋势, 结果发现：小学二年级儿童即使经过多次学习, 也不能意识到部分线索的消极作用; 小学五年级儿童经过二次学习后, 方可意识到这种消极作用, 并在部分线索条件下安排了更多的学习时间; 初二和高二年级学生经过一次学习, 即可意识到部分线索的消极作用, 他们均在部分线索条件下安排了更长的学习时间。结果表明：儿童的学习时间分配决策能力在小学二年级到小学五年级之间有一个质的提高; 与初二学生相比, 高二学生对部分线索带来的消极影响做了更多的时间补偿。     

Part-list cuing in speeded recognition and free recall

The primary question was whether part-list cuing decrements would occur in a speeded yes/no recognition task and free recall. After studying category exemplars, participants were tested either after re-presentation of a subset of the exemplars (cues) or without re-presentation. Free recall of all study items followed the recognition task in each trial. Across two experiments, results demonstrated part-list cuing impairment in two ways: significant slowing of target recognition and lower free recall of target items in cued than in uncued trials. These findings extend the limited research on part-list cuing in recognition and support retrieval inhibition and retrieval competition interpretations of the phenomenon. Moreover, despite arguments for the necessity of the presence of cues for part-list inhibition, the present experiments demonstrate that the negative effects of cues can persist in their absence.     

部分线索对记忆提取的影响:认知抑制能力的作用

在回忆时,以刚刚学过的部分项目作为提取线索,被试的回忆成绩反而比没有任何线索时的回忆成绩差,这一现象被称为部分线索效应。该效应通常被认为是抑制执行控制过程对非线索项目记忆表征强度抑制的结果。本研究以Stroop效应量(实验1)和工作记忆容量(实验2)为指标,从个体差异角度考察了认知抑制能力对部分线索效应的影响。结果发现,Stroop效应量与部分线索效应各指标呈显著负相关,Stroop效应量越小,部分线索效应各指标的值越大;工作记忆容量与部分线索效应各指标呈显著正相关,高工作记忆容量个体的部分线索效应各指标的值也更大。结果表明,认知抑制能力越强,部分线索对回忆的破坏作用越大,研究结果支持部分线索效应的提取抑制假说。     

任务难度与部分线索效应

部分线索效应是指在学习一个词表后,呈现已学项目中的一部分作为回忆线索去回忆其他项目时,回忆效果反而不如没有线索组的效果好。研究通过三个实验探讨了不同任务难度的部分线索效应。结果表明：（1）在中文词表记忆中存在部分线索效应;（2）随着学习材料难度的提高由部分线索造成的提取成绩的削减量降低。这一研究结果支持了部分线索效应的策略破坏假说。     

Part-list cuing with and without item-specific probes: The role of encoding

Part-list cuing—the detrimental effect of the presentation of a subset of studied items on recall of the remaining noncue items—was examined in three different study conditions and in the presence and absence of the noncues’ initial letters serving as item-specific probes. With a single study trial, part-list cuing was observed both with and without item-specific probes. By contrast, when participants received two study-test cycles or interrelated list items to a common story, part-list cues were found to be detrimental only in the absence of item-specific probes, but not in their presence. These results indicate that the role of item-specific probes in part-list cuing depends on encoding. The findings are consistent with a recent two-mechanism account of part-list cuing (Bäuml &; Aslan, 2006), according to which two different mechanisms mediate the effect in different encoding situations.     

An adjacency effect in free recall

An adjacency effect was demonstrated at a high level of significance in the free recall, by 123 subjects, of a list of 40 high-frequency nouns presented in varying order on successive trials. The phenomenon referred to as the adjacency effect consists of the fact that when a subject is given repeated trials of study and free recall of a list of words (always presented in a different order), the probability of recalling a given item is greater when the item is presented temporally adjacent to an item which is already learned (as evidenced by recall on the previous trial) than when the item stands temporally between other items which are not yet learned. The enhancement of recall is greater when the item is presented between two previously learned items. The implications of the adjacency effect for verbal learning theory, particularly for the serial-position effect in serial learning and the concepts of interference and neural consolidation, are discussed.     

工作记忆中的部分线索效应:任务呈现方式的影响

以往研究主要在长时记忆中考察部分线索效应,很少关注工作记忆中的部分线索效应及其作用机制。本研究采用项目再认任务,考察了工作记忆中提供部分学习项目作为提取线索,对存储在工作记忆中的已有表征的影响。结果发现：有、无部分线索试次分组呈现时,相较于无部分线索条件,有部分线索条件下再认正确率和d'降低,β升高,反应时间延长;有、无部分线索试次随机混合呈现时,有部分线索条件下再认正确率降低,β升高,但反应时间并无显著延长。结果表明：工作记忆中部分线索的提供降低了目标项目的表征强度;研究结果可用提取抑制假说解释,但工作记忆中部分线索的作用可能受注意资源有限性制约。     

The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes

In two experiments with categorized lists, we asked whether the testing effect in free recall is related to enhancements in organizational processing. During a first phase in Experiment 1, subjects studied one list over eight consecutive trials, they studied another list six times while taking two interspersed recall tests, and they learned a third list in four alternating study and test trials. On a test 2 days later, recall was directly related to the number of tests and inversely related to the number of study trials. In addition, increased testing enhanced both the number of categories accessed and the number of items recalled from within those categories. One measure of organization also increased with the number of tests. In a second experiment, different groups of subjects studied a list either once or twice before a final criterial test, or they studied the list once and took an initial recall test before the final test. Prior testing again enhanced recall, relative to studying on the final test a day later, and also improved category clustering. The results suggest that the benefit of testing in free recall learning arises because testing creates retrieval schemas that guide recall.     

Encoding differences in recognition and recall

After practice consisting of the free recall of five blocked categorized lists, Ss were presented a sixth list and then unexpectedly tested for recognition. After practice at recognition of the same five lists, Ss were unexpectedly tested for recall following presentation of the sixth test. Recognition performance was superior when items were encoded in anticipation of a recognition test. Intracategory serial position functions for Ss anticipating recall tests were different from those anticipating recognition tests regardless of the retention test employed. The role of control processes in recall and recognition testing is discussed     

Effective list length and part-whole transfer in first-graders' multitrial free recall

First-gradens' multitrial free recall shows an effective list-length (ELL) effect: an initial recall gain followed by a constant output level that fluctuates in item content. The part-whole transfer paradigm was used to investigate ELL. The ELL effect occurred in whole-list learning regardless of whether the prior task consisted of relevant practice, irrelevant practice, or an unrelated task. Relevant part-list learning resulted in positive transfer which declined from a high to a marginal level over the course of whole-list learning. Other analyses indicated a general deficit in the use of strategies. A response-strength model was used to explain the ELL effect and the transfer results.     

Retrieval-induced forgetting and part-list cuing in associatively structured lists

Using DRM lists (Roediger & McDermott, 1995) in two experiments, we compared the effects of retrieval practice on a subset of the items and of the presentation of those items as retrieval cues at test on recall of the lists' critical items. In Experiment 1, the critical items were part of the studied lists, thus addressing these items' veridical recall; in Experiment 2, they were not studied, thus addressing these items' false recall. Three major results emerged. First, retrieval practice and part-list cuing reduced both veridical and false recall. Second, the two manipulations induced an integration effect in veridical recall, with substantial forgetting in lists with low false recall levels and no forgetting in lists with high false recall levels. Third, retrieval practice and part-list cuing created the same effects on recall, qualitatively and quantitatively. These results suggest that the detrimental effects of retrieval practice and part-list cuing were mediated by similar mechanisms. They are consistent with the view that not only retrieval-induced forgetting, but also part-list cuing is caused by inhibitory processes.     

Influences of part-list cuing on different forms of episodic forgetting

Across 3 experiments, we examined the interplay of part-list cuing and forgetting, employing 3 different methods to induce episodic forgetting-list--method directed forgetting, context-dependent forgetting, and proactive interference. For each form of forgetting, participants were asked at test to recall the target items of a previously studied list in the presence or the absence of the list's remaining items serving as retrieval cues. We found such part-list cuing to amplify the forgetting in proactive interference but to diminish the forgetting in list-method directed forgetting and context-dependent forgetting. These results show that the effects of part-list cuing on forgotten memories depend critically on the circumstances surrounding the forgetting. If the forgetting reflects impaired access to the original encoding context, as has been suggested in list-method directed forgetting and context-dependent forgetting (but not in proactive interference), part-list cues improve access to forgotten memories; if the forgetting does not reflect such a contextual effect, no such beneficial effects emerge, and access to forgotten memories may even be impaired.     

The statistical evidence for negative transfer in part-whole free recall

A series of studies on part-whole free recall led to the conclusion that learning part of a list before learning the entire list produces negative transfer late in learning. The statistical evidence for this conclusion is shown to depend upon assumptions about (1) the asymptotic level reached and (2) the relative magnitude of the variance between conditions as compared to the variance of Ss within conditions. Evidence concerning these assumptions is reviewed, and it is argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion of negative transfer in part-whole free recall.     

The effects of learning instructions and cueing on free recall

Eighty unrelated high-imagery words were presented for free recall learning in groups of four words each. Learning instructions were varied, with one group told to relate the words in each input group by means of images, another group told to use verbal (sentence) mediators, and the control group not given specific learning instructions. During recall, list items were presented as retrieval cues in some conditions. In comparison with the control condition, imagery and verbal mediation instructions produced greater recall, more clustering, and a largez number of instances per group recalled. When the retrieval cues were selected such that one cue came from each of the input groups and when the strength of within-group organization was quite high, Ss recalled more words and a larger number of input groups. It was concluded that instructions and cueing conditions influenced different aspects of the free recall process. Instructions influenced the organization of individual words into units, and cueing affected the retrieval of specific units.     

Decomposing serial learning: What is missing from the learning curve?

Our current understanding of serial learning relies on the form of the learning curve and on changes in the serial position curve over repeated study-test trials (Ward, 1937). The averaging of data that produces these functions obscures the detailed history of memory for individual items over the course of study-test trials. Extending Tulving’s (1964) analysis of free recall learning, we present a new analysis of serial learning that tracks the acquisition and forgetting of item and order information at the level of individual items. Applying this analysis to two large data sets on serial list learning allows us to discern among hypotheses that are indistinguishable solely on the basis of the learning curve.     

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

The reexposure of a subset of learned material as a retrieval cue can impair recall of the remaining material. Like part-list relearning--the reexposure of learned material for additional learning--this part-list cuing is often assumed to be the result of output order biases at test, caused by the increased strength of the reexposed material. We directly compared the effects of cuing and relearning when controlling for output order biases. In addition, we compared the two forms of reexposure with the effect of part-list retrieval. Both part-list cuing and part-list retrieval reduced recall performance for the remaining material. By contrast, part-list relearning had no such detrimental effect. These results indicate that the effect of reexposure depends on whether material is reexposed as a cue or for relearning, suggesting that part-list cuing reflects an instructional effect. Evidence is provided that part-list cuing leads to instructed covert retrieval of cue items and causes retrieval inhibition of noncue items, similar to how overt retrieval inhibits nonretrieved items.     

Part-list cuing in amnesic patients: evidence for a retrieval deficit

Part-list cuing--the detrimental effect of the presentation of a subset of learned items on recall of the remaining items--was examined in amnesic patients and healthy control subjects. Subjects studied two types of categorized item lists: lists in which each category consisted of strong and moderate items and lists in which each category consisted of weak and moderate items. The subjects recalled a category's strong and weak items in either the presence of or absence of the moderate items serving as retrieval cues. In healthy subjects, part-list cuing impaired recall of the strong items but not of the weak items; in amnesics, part-list cuing impaired recall of both types of items. Part-list cuing is often attributed to a change in the retrieval process from a more effective one when cues are absent to a less effective one when they are present. On the basis of this view, our results indicate that part-list cuing causes a stronger retrieval inefficiency in amnesic patients than in healthy people.     

Fluctuations in recall across successive test trials

The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether item fluctuation (intertrial forgetting and spontaneous recovery) depends upon the time allowed for recall and/or the demand characteristics of the experimental situation (manipulated via instructions to S). One hundred. and forty-four university undergraduates studied a 36-item list and then had two successive recall trials which were 9, 36, or 144 sec in duration. On the second recall trial, Ss were instructed to recall previously recalled items only (“old”), previously nonrecalled items only (“new”), or both previously recalled items and previously nonrecalled items (“both”). The results suggest two conclusions: (1) Although recall trial duration affects the overall amount of recall, it does not affect the amount of item fluctuation; and (2) an instruction to recall only “old” items or to recall only “new” items results in suppression of the nonrequested items without a corresponding facilitation for the requested items.