The imagery effect and phenomenal background frequency in verbal discrimination learning

A series of four experiments was conducted to assess the role of phenomenal background frequency in verbal discrimination learning and its possible involvement in the imagery effect. The initial two experiments produced a reliable imagery effect for mixed and unmixed lists with respect to concreteness of pair members, regardless of phenomenal frequency manipulations, with words high in objective background frequency. No effects were found for phenomenal background frequency. Experiment 3 involved phenomenal frequency ratings for 200 abstract and 200 concrete words. Experiment 4 evaluated the role of phenomenal background frequency for a mixed list using words low in objective frequency. A reliable imagery effect was again found with no effects for phenomenal frequency. An alternative hypothesis involving differential accrual of situational frequency to abstract and concrete items during verbal discrimination learning to explain the imagery effect was also tested by Experiment 4 but was not supported by the data.     

Does emotion help or hinder immediate memory? Arousal versus priority-binding mechanisms

People recall taboo words better than neutral words in many experimental contexts. The present rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) experiments demonstrated this taboo-superiority effect for immediate recall of mixed lists containing taboo and neutral words matched for familiarity, length, and category coherence. Under binding theory (MacKay et al., 2004), taboo superiority reflects an interference effect: Because the emotional reaction system prioritizes binding mechanisms for linking the source of an emotion to its context, taboo words capture the mechanisms for encoding list context in mixed lists, impairing the encoding of adjacent neutral words when RSVP rates are sufficiently rapid. However, for pure or unmixed lists, binding theory predicted no better recall of taboo-only than of neutral-only lists at fast or slow rates. Present results supported this prediction, suggesting that taboo superiority in immediate recall reflects context-specific binding processes, rather than context-free arousal effects, or emotion-linked differences in rehearsal, processing time, output interference, time-based decay, or guessing biases.     

Disentangling encoding versus retrieval explanations of the bizarreness effect: Implications for distinctiveness

Recall effects attributed to distinctiveness have been explained by both encoding and retrieval accounts. Resolution of this theoretical controversy has been clouded because the typical methodology confounds the encoding and retrieval contexts. Using bizarre and common sentences as materials, we introduce a paradigm that decouples the nature of the encoding context (mixed vs. unmixed lists of items) from the retrieval set (mixed vs. unmixed retrieval sets). Experiment 1 presented unmixed lists for study, and Experiment 2 presented mixed lists for study. In both experiments, significant bizarreness effects were obtained in free recall when the retrieval set intermixed items but not when the retrieval set consisted of only one item type. Also, Experiment 1, using a repeated testing procedure, did not reveal evidence for more extensive encoding of bizarre sentences than of common sentences. The results support the idea that retrieval dynamics primarily mediate the bizarreness effect, and perhaps more generally, distinctiveness effects.     

The bizarre mnemonic

Summary Five experiments measured effects of bizarre contexts on the free recall of noun triplets after brief retention intervals. More triplets were remembered from bizarre than from common contexts in short mixed lists (12 sentences) when the sentences were presented at a controlled (10 seconds/sentence) rate, regardless of incidental task (rating images for bizarreness, vividness, or memorability). The average number of words/sentence recalled, however, tended to be higher for common than for bizarre contexts. No memory benefit from bizarreness was found for pure lists nor for lists containing more than six triplets in bizarre contexts. The bizarreness effect was less when the subject controlled the rate of presentation. A sixth experiment, which tested recall after immediate and two-day retention intervals, found that the Bizarre/Common Context by Pure/Mixed List interaction increased over longer retention intervals.     

Role of study strategy in recall of mixed lists of common and rare words

Experiment 1 confirmed previous findings that common words are more recallable than are rare words when the 2 kinds of words are presented in separate lists but not when they are presented in the same list. Experiment 2 showed much the same pattern when an orienting task was performed during word presentation. In Experiment 3 common words were found to be more recallable than rare words even for mixed lists when no warning was given of the memory test, although the effect was less pronounced than for pure lists. In Experiment 4 stronger measures were taken to preclude anticipation of the memory test, and the effect of word commonness was found to be just as pronounced with mixed lists as it was with pure lists. It was suggested that lists are studied in a way believed to optimize recall and that mixed lists foster a strategy of favoring the rare words.     

Can semantic relatedness explain the enhancement of memory for emotional words?

Memory for emotional items is often better than memory for neutral items. In three experiments, we examined whether this typical finding is due to the higher semantic relatedness inherent to emotional items, a confound in previous studies. We also controlled for other possible confounding variables, such as imagery. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants encoded lists of emotional and categorized neutral words equivalent in semantic relatedness, as well as lists of random neutral words with lower semantic relatedness. In Experiment 3, the lists were mixed, containing words from all the conditions. Surprise free recall was tested after a 40- to 55-min retention interval. Free recall of emotional words was better than that of random neutral words, replicating the classic effect. Importantly, categorized words were recalled better than random neutral words, and not worse than emotional words. These results emphasize the important role of semantic relatedness in the classic effect and suggest that organizational processes operate alongside arousal-related ones to enhance memory for emotional material.     

False recognition of associates: How robust is the effect?

False recognition of nonpresented words that were strong associates of 12 words in a study list was examined. Six lists were read to subjects; each list contained the 12 strongest associates to a critical nonpresented word. False-alarm rates to the 6 critical nonpresented words were obtained under several different conditions. The manipulations included varying the level of processing done to the study lists, varying the recognition-test procedure, repeating each of the study lists three times, and mixing the words from the six study lists together. A reliable false-recognition effect for critical nonpresented words was obtained in all conditions. However, the effect was not impervious to all of the manipulations. Significantly lower false recognition was obtained when learning was incidental as well as when the words on the six lists were mixed together. Neither level of processing nor repetition significantly influenced false recognition. This last result is inconsistent with Hintzman’s (1988) MINERVA 2 global memory model, but agrees with predictions from Shiffrin, Ratcliff, and Clark’s (1990) SAM model.     

Intention to learn influences the word frequency effect in recall but not in recognition memory

Watkins, LeCompte, and Kim (2000) suggested that the recall advantage for rare words in mixed lists is due to a compensatory study strategy that favors the rare words. They found the advantage was reversed when rare and common words were studied under incidental learning conditions. The present study investigated the possibility that the rare-word advantage in recognition memory is also the result of a compensatory study strategy. Experiment 1 replicated the findings of Watkins et al. that the rare-word advantage in recall is eliminated under incidental learning conditions. In contrast, Experiment 2 showed that the rare-word advantage in recognition memory is maintained under both intentional and incidental learning conditions. Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiments 1 and 2 using different stimuli and a different orienting task. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that the rare-word advantage in recognition is maintained with pure lists. These findings show that the rare-word advantage in recognition memory is not the result of a compensatory study strategy. Instead, rare words are encoded more distinctively than common words, irrespective of participants' intention to remember them.     

Spontaneous attention to primed and nonprimed inputs

The literature is ambiguous with respect to whether attention is drawn spontaneously to expected or unexpected items in mixed arrays. Several studies from our own laboratory indicate that even though expected words are more localizable than unexpected words in unmixed four-word arrays, showing a baseline advantage for expected words, unexpected words are sometimes more localizable than their expected companions in mixed arrays, suggesting that unexpected words attract attention (see, e.g., Johnston & Schwarting, 1996). By contrast, Dark, Vochatzer, and VanVoorhis (1996) observed that expected words were more reportable than their unexpected companions in mixed, two-word arrays. However, because the Dark et al. research did not include arrays in which both words were expected, it is not clear whether their findings reflect an attentional effect over and above a baseline advantage of expected words. The present study added some additional controls in order to assess this possibility. The superior reportability of expected words was even greater in mixed arrays than in unmixed arrays, suggesting that expected words in mixed arrays attract attention. Following Johnston and Hawley (1994), the conflicting effects of expectancy on spontaneous attention are taken as further evidence that the mind/brain system is biased simultaneously toward both what it most expects and what it least expects to perceive.     

Using overt rehearsals to explain word frequency effects in free recall

Three experiments examined the word frequency effect in free recall using the overt rehearsal methodology. Experiment 1 showed that lists of exclusively high-frequency (HF) words were better recalled, were rehearsed more, and were rehearsed to more recent serial positions than low-frequency (LF) words. A small HF advantage remained even when these 2 variables were equated. Experiment 2 showed that all these effects were much reduced with mixed lists containing both HF and LF words. Experiment 3 compared pure and mixed lists in a within-subject design and confirmed the findings of Experiments 1 and 2. It is argued that number of rehearsals, recency of rehearsals, and strength of interitem associations cause the word frequency effect in free recall.     

Word frequency and the mixed-list paradox in immediate and delayed serial recall

In free recall tasks, when low- and high-frequency items are mixed within the to-be-remembered lists, the usual recall advantage found for high-frequency words is eliminated or reversed. Recently, this mixedlist paradox has also been demonstrated for short-term serial recall (Hulme, Stuart, Brown, & Morin, 2003). Although a number of theoretical interpretations of this mixed-list paradox have been proposed, researchers have also suggested that it could simply be a result of participant-controlled strategies (M. J. Watkins, LeCompte, & Kim, 2000). The present study was designed to assess whether this explanation could be applied to immediate and delayed serial recall. The results showed that high-frequency words were recalled better than low-frequency words in pure lists, but that this effect was eliminated in mixed lists, whether they were given under intentional or incidental learning conditions. This pattern suggests that the mixed-list paradox cannot be explained by participant-controlled strategies.     

The influence of word frequency on recency effects in directed free recall

Leading theoretical explanations of recency effects are designed to explain the reported absence of a word frequency effect on recall of words from recency serial positions. The present study used a directed free-recall procedure (J. J. Dalezman, 1976) and manipulated the frequency composition of the word lists (pure and mixed). Overall, with pure lists, a greater proportion of high-frequency (HF) words were recalled than low-frequency (LF) words, and with mixed lists, a greater proportion of LF words were recalled than HF words. Of importance, this recall advantage for one frequency over the other as a function of list composition was evident across the last three serial positions, indicating an influence of word frequency on recency effects that is dependent on the frequency composition of the lists. These results challenge one of the major assumptions on which several theories of recency effects have been based.     

When are nonwords easy to see?

The influences of presentation mode (mixed vs. blocked trials) and target variability on the detection of targets in words and in random letter strings were examined. The results indicated that there was a substantial word superiority effect in mixed lists of words and nonwords, but that this effect was eliminated when pure lists of words and nonwords were compared. Also, target variability affected the shape of the serial position curve. When subjects searched repeatedly for a single target, the serial position curve had only a significant linear component. However, when the identity of the target varied from trial to trial, the serial position curve had a significant quartic component (i.e.. it was M-shaped). These results were interpreted in terms of strategies and feature learning.     

Effects of Word Processing and Short-term Memory Deficits on Verbal Learning: Evidence from Aphasia

We report two experiments that investigate the abilities of aphasic subjects with lexical and short-term memory impairments to learn supraspan lists of 10 words. We examined effects of stimulus factors (characteristics of words and lists to be learned) and subject factors (verbal and nonverbal STM span, nature of language impairment). Learning ability was influenced by the imageability and frequency of the words to be learned (Experiment 1) and by the linguistic relationship among words in a list (Experiment 2). Additionally, learning ability was affected by the nature of a subject's word processing deficit (whether it involved semantic and/or phonological processes). Phonological ability was positively associated with learning in both experiments, and semantic ability was associated with learning when words in a list were high in both frequency and imageability (Experiment 1) or were contextually related to one another (Experiment 2). Finally, verbal STM span was positively related to learning performance, but the effect was more pronounced for word span than digit span. These relationships among word processing ability, verbal STM span, and learning ability are discussed with reference to learning in aphasia and to models of learning more generally.     

The spacing effect: Additions to the theoretical and empirical puzzles

Four studies examined the MP-DP effect (spacing effect) in four quite different situations: recognition of letters, verbal discrimination, short free recall lists, and recall of MP items presented twice, with an intervening interval inserted to produce forgetting. MP-DP differences were found in all studies. Of particular interest were three interactions. Subjects with a low criterion of responding in the letter study lost the MP-DP effect over a 30-sec delay, and subjects with a high criterion did not. A clear MP-DP effect, but no lag effect, was found only with unmixed verbal discrimination lists. In free recall, a sharp lag effect was shown for words presented three times but not for words presented twice. A forgetting interval inserted between the two occurrences of an MP item did not appreciably aid its recall. The results were found to pose severe problems for current theoretical ideas about the spacing effect.     

Effects of word frequency on individual-item and serial order retention: Tests of the order-encoding view

The order-encoding view of the word frequency effect proposes that low-frequency (LF) items attract more attention to the encoding of individual-item information than do high-frequency (HF) items, but at the expense of order encoding (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). When combined with the assumption that free recall of unrelated words is organized according to their original order of presentation, this view explains the finding that HF words are better recalled than LF words in pure lists but that, in mixed lists, recall is better for LF words. The present study confirmed that in mixed lists, order memory becomes equivalent for HF and LF words and that the predicted pattern of order memory and recall holds fo r incidental order-encoding conditions, for longerlists than those used inprevious experiments, and for lists with minimal interitem associativity. Moreover, recall from HF lists declined, but recall from LF lists improved, in related-word lists, relative to unrelated-word lists, reversing the usual pure-list free recall advantage for HF words. These results were uniquely predicted by the order-encoding account and favor this view over accessibility, interitem association, and cuing effectiveness explanations of the word frequency effect.     

A comparison of the effects of formal similarity among trigrams and among word triads

The central question of this report concerned the role of formal similarity in free recall of lists of trigrams and lists of three-letter word triads. Similarity was manipulated among trigrams by duplicating letters and among triads by duplicating words. An initial study showed that lists of 16 letters were learned more rapidly than a list of 16 three-letter words. Therefore, in the major experiment, the Ss were given all appropriate elements on test trials so that only associative learning was required. Increases in formal similarity caused decreases in rate of learning for both types of lists, and the mechanisms of the interference seemed to be the same for both types of lists, However, the learning of the trigram lists was more rapid than the learning of the triad lists, the difference being maximal with low similarity.     

工作记忆中汉语反词长效应机制

工作记忆中的反词长效应(reverse word-length effect)指在对长词和短词混合的词表进行即时序列回忆时, 独立长词回忆成绩优于独立短词的现象。以汉字词语为材料通过3个实验探讨反词长效应的机制。实验1采用纯粹词表和长短词混合词表, 既得到纯粹词词长效应, 也得到独立词反词长效应。实验2削弱了长短词之间的词长差异, 结果独立词反词长效应消失, 且独立词回忆成绩优于纯粹词。实验3设计了视觉延迟条件, 得到与实验1类似的结果, 只是独立词反词长效应有所削弱。三个实验的结果并不一致, 无法用现有的语音回路理论或SIMPLE理论进行很好地解释, 理论的整合与创新显得非常重要。因此, 提出多重编码以既相互竞争又相互补充方式进行平行加工的观点进行更完整地解释。     

Good and bad effects of phonological similarity on word and nonword recall: The role of beginnings and ends

This study explored whether earlier results of differential (harmful vs. helpful) short-term memory effects of shared syllables at nonword beginnings compared to ends could be replicated for lists of bisyllabic real words. We studied immediate serial recall of lists that had phonologically redundant syllables at the beginnings or ends of two-syllable words or nonwords. The results showed that redundancy at the beginning had a negative effect on both types of material. Redundancy at the end did not impair memory for nonwords but harmed the serial recall of words. Irrespective of lexicality, lists of beginning-redundant items were more difficult to recall than end-redundant items. The distribution of errors suggested that the better recall of end-redundant lists compared to beginning-redundant lists was related to a positive effect at encoding and/or retention, independent of effects at recall, for both words and nonwords.