Facilitation of recall with intralist cues: Time-dependent characteristics of cued recall

List items were given as retrieval cues in a free-recall experiment which factorially combined the presence or absence of cues with the amount of time allowed for use of each cue (10 sec or 30 sec). A categorizable list of 75 randomly presented words was learned, and 48 h later a free-recall test trial was given, followed by a final memory search task. During the final task, cued subjects received words from categories that had not been recalled during the free-recall test. With both time intervals, cued subjects recalled more words than noncued subjects, indicating that random presentation of categorized words does not necessarily preclude the observation of a cueing effect with list items, as has been reported previously. The composition of recall, whether from previously recalled or nonrecalled categories, varied as a function of time for both groups. The results were interpreteod in terms of retrieval strategies employed by cued and noncued subjects and the effect of time on these strategies.     

Effects of part-set cuing on experienced and novice chess players' reconstruction of a typical chess midgame position

A typical midgame chess position was presented to participants for 30 sec. Participants then reconstructed the presented position on a second board from memory. Following a brief distraction phase, participants were asked to reconstruct the position a second time with 0, 6, or 12 of the original pieces present. It was hypothesized that cue presentation during second reconstruction would be more disruptive to experienced players' recall than to novices'. Recall was measured in terms of correct pieces placed, new items generated (reminiscence), and previously recalled items omitted (forgetting). Analysis indicated that cues neither facilitated nor inhibited recall: experienced players performed better than novice players across recall indices, with the exception of reminiscence at which both groups performed similarly.     

Semantic similarity and immediate serial recall: Is there an effect on all trials

In immediate serial recall, items are better recalled when they are all drawn from the same semantic category. This is usually accounted for by a two-stage retrieval-based framework, in which, at recall, long-term knowledge is used to reconstruct degraded phonological traces. The category shared by list items would serve as an additional retrieval cue restricting the number of recall candidates. Usually, the long-term search set is not defined, but some authors have suggested an extended search set and others a restricted set that is composed of the most recently presented items. This was tested in an experiment in which participants undertook an immediate serial recall task either alone or under articulatory suppression with either semantically similar or dissimilar lists. A trial-by-trial analysis revealed that, in both quiet and suppression conditions, items from similar lists were better recalled on all the trials, including the first one. In addition, there was no interaction between semantic similarity and trial, indicating that the effect of similarity was of similar size on all the trials. The results are best interpreted within a proposal suggesting an extended long-term search set.     

Retrieval in cued recall

Three experiments examined retrieval in a cued recall paradigm by manipulating the pattern of output cues. In the first two experiments, subjects were paced through recall of a categorized list by recalling one word at a time in response to a category name as a retrieval cue. The pattern of these output cues exerted a strong influence on performance. Subjects recalled considerably more when the cues were blocked by category than when required to recall successive words from different categories. This output effect increased over trials, and was interpreted in terms of a model in which subjects develop a retrieval strategy that can be interfered with by the circumstances of output. The last experiment contrasted structural and strategy models in a hierarchical recall paradigm. Subjects were given a set of postinput recall cues that either made evident the hierarchical structure of the input list or contained the same cue words but with no hierarchical information. Information about the hierarchical structure improved performance even when provided only during recall. The data were discuss in terms of recent models of recall, and a compromise was suggested.     

Free recall and retrieval speed of categorized items by kindergarten children

Kindergarten Ss were presented with 16 pictorial items in four category sets or a partially random ordem with one item from each category composing the four presentation sets. The pictures were presented either on conceptually related background pictures or on white backgrounds. The categorically grouped presentation facilitated free recall performance, both in terms of number of items recalled and the speed with which the items were recalled, and increased the amount of clustering in recall. Categorical clustering in recall was associated with shorter within- than between-category intervals and for those Ss who recalled items from each of four categories successively, the over-all temporal pattern in recall closely approximated that found with adults. No background effects were found.     

Social processing improves recall performance

One recent theory (Dunbar, 2003) has highlighted the importance that processing social information might have had on the evolution of human cognition. Based on an analysis of that theory, researchers predicted that processing information in a social manner would improve recall performance in comparison with nonsocial processing. In order to test this prediction, three experiments were conducted in which participants studied 30-item word lists that were composed of common character traits (Experiment 1) or common category exem-plars (Experiments 2 and 3). Next, participants reviewed 5 list items that were purportedly recalled by either a group member or the computer. Finally, after a brief distractor task, participants were asked to complete an individual recall test for all of the items on the original 30-item list. Of primary interest was recall performance for the list items that were purportedly recalled by either another participant or the computer. We observed that recall performance for list items purportedly recalled by another participant was superior to that for items that were recalled by the computer.     

Recall of short word lists presented visually at fast rates: Effects of phonological similarity and word length

Phonological similarity of visually presented list items impairs short-term serial recall. Lists of long words are also recalled less accurately than are lists of short words. These results have been attributed to phonological recoding and rehearsal. If subjects articulate irrelevant words during list presentation, both phonological similarity and word length effects are abolished. Experiments 1 and 2 examined effects of phonological similarity and recall instructions on recall of lists shown at fast rates (from one item per 0.114-0.50 sec), which might not permit phonological encoding and rehearsal. In Experiment 3, recall instructions and word length were manipulated using fast presentation rates. Both phonological similarity and word length effects were observed, and they were not dependent on recall instructions. Experiments 4 and 5 investigated the effects of irrelevant concurrent articulation on lists shown at fast rates. Both phonological similarity and word length effects were removed by concurrent articulation, as they were with slow presentation rates.     

Memory search: When does semantic analysis occur?

This study was addressed to the determination of the stage at which semantic analysis occurs during a STM recognition task. A list of exemplars (memory set), drawn from 13 different categories, was presented at a rate of 11/2 sec/item, followed by a category name probe. Ss then indicated whether any of the exemplars in the memory set belonged to that category. List length was varied from 5 to 7, with each memory set containing items from either two or three categories. It was found that RT was independent of list length, but did increase by 60 msec as the number of categories represented in the list increased from two to three. From this, it was concluded that activation of a superordinate category representation occurred upon presentation of each memory-set item, and that the memory scan was done on these superordinate categories.     

Strong items get suppressed, weak items do not: The role of item strength in output interference

An experiment is reported that examines the role of item strength in output interference. 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. Different degrees of item strength were accomplished by varying the items’ taxonomic frequency within a category. The subjects either recalled a category’s strong and weak items before its moderate items, or vice versa. The prior recall of the moderate items impaired the later recall of the strong items, but did not impair the later recall of the weak items. This effect of item strength indicates that output interference is caused by a process of retrieval suppression. It additionally suggests that, in order to minimize output-interference effects in recall, a list’s strong items should be recalled before its weak items.     

Separating central mechanisms by POCs: Evidence for an input—output buffer

Four experiments were performed, in each of which two sub-lists of items were presented for later recall, with varying priorities for success on each of the lists. All showed a trade-off, indicating that at some point the two lists were using the same mechanisms. In the two cases where presentation was simultaneous, however, the effects of priority interacted with those of recall order—that is, the items recalled first showed a larger effect of priority than did those recalled second. In the two cases where one sub-list arrived after the other, the low-priority items gave just as large an effect of recall order as the high-priority items. The second list presented did, however, show a larger effect of recall order than the first list presented. It is argued that the systems shared between two sublists involve some representations that are not disturbed by output, as well as an input—output buffer. The latter can hold a little extra information temporarily, but is disturbed by output; for successive lists it is dedicated largely to the most recently received list, but for simultaneous lists it is shared between the two lists in proportion to priority.     

Two mechanisms in the stimulus suffix effect

The stimulus suffix is a redundant item presented immediately after a stimulus list. Its effect is the selective impairment of recall of the final items in a serially recalled, auditorily presented list of unconnected items. Two experiments indicate that there was no difference between the effects of suffixes .5 and 1.0 sec after the end of a digit list presented at a rate of one digit/sec. This suggests that the effect of the suffix, in this case the vowel sound "ah," is not a simple function of its time of arrival after the final digit, as has been thought. The possibility of more complex factors was supported in a further experiment which showed a slight reduction in the size of the suffix effect by repeating the suffix three times.     

Concerning the role of perceptual factors in the serial position effect

The experiment described here addresses itself to the serial position effect of recall, and in particular to the cause of primacy. Two of the three theories discussed here (selective rehearsal and proactive interference) postulate competition between items during the storage interval as a cause of primacy, acquisition being assumed to be equal for all items. The third theory (differential perceptual processing) places the locus of the effect prior to the storage stage, and does not hold interactions between items to be essential to the effect after encoding. The experiment used this distinction between the two classes of theories, storage of the whole presentation (and hence interactions during storage) not being required. Only one word from each list was recalled, and this item was indicated to S on presentation, thereby eliminating the necessity to attempt to encode all items. The storage-interaction theories predict no primacy for the recall of individual items in this experiment, but the initial member of the list was recalled more often than the third member. This example of primacy lends support to the argument that the trace strengths of items are not always equal immediately after presentation.     

The use of source memory to identify one's own episodic confusion errors

In 4 category cued recall experiments, participants falsely recalled nonlist common members, a semantic confusion error. Errors were more likely if critical nonlist words were presented on an incidental task, causing source memory failures called episodic confusion errors. Participants could better identify the source of falsely recalled words if they had deeply processed the words on the incidental task. For deep but not shallow processing, participants could reliably include or exclude incidentally shown category members in recall. The illusion that critical items actually appeared on categorized lists was diminished but not eradicated when participants identified episodic confusion errors post hoc among their own recalled responses; participants often believed that critical items had been on both the incidental task and the study list. Improved source monitoring can potentially mitigate episodic (but not semantic) confusion errors.     

Video training of imagery for mature adults

To examine the effectiveness of videotaped memory training, two groups of middle-aged and older adults were given imagery training that included videotaped presentation of interactive imagery for object location recall and linking items on a list, and the image-name match method for name recall. The training group performed significantly better than the waiting list on the initial post-test, and the two groups were comparable after both groups had received training. Evidence for both maintenance and generalization was found. Videotaped presentation of imagery training is effective for mature adults as a self-paced at-home intervention, and has cost-saving advantages over the predominant training methodology.     

Spatial Imagery Preserves Temporal Order

Line drawings were presented in either a spatial or a nonspatial format. Subjects recalled each of four sets of 24 items in serial order. Amount recalled in the correct serial order and sequencing errors were scored. In Experiment 1 items appeared either in consecutive locations of a matrix or in one central location. Subjects who saw the items in different locations made fewer sequencing errors than those who saw each item in a central location, but serial recall levels for these two conditions did not differ. When items appeared in nonconsecutive locations in Experiment 2, the advantage of the spatial presentation on sequencing errors disappeared. Experiment 3 included conditions in which both the consecutive and nonconsecutive spatial formats were paired with retrieval cues that either did or did not indicate the sequence of locations in which the items had appeared. Spatial imagery aided sequencing when, and only when, the order of locations in which the stimuli appeared could be reconstructed at retrieval.     

Modality effects in delayed free recall and recognition: Visual is better than auditory

During presentation of auditory and visual lists of words, different groups of subjects generated words that either rhymed with the presented words or that were associates. Immediately after list presentation, subjects recalled either the presented or the generated words. After presentation and test of all lists, a final free recall test and a recognition test were given. Visual presentation generally produced higher recall and recognition than did auditory presentation for both encoding conditions. The results are not consistent with explanations of modality effects in terms of echoic memory or greater temporal distinctiveness of auditory items. The results are more in line with the separate-streams hypothesis, which argues for different kinds of input processing for auditory and visual items.     

Output buffer storage and the modality of recall

In two experiments, subjects were presented with two lists of visual items simultaneously, both of which were to be recalled. The order of recall of the lists was manipulated. In Experiment 1, subjects were required to recall one list by speaking it and the other by writing it down. Prior knowledge of the particular mode of output required for each list resulted in significantly higher levels of recall than in a condition in which the output mode for each list was not known until after presentation. This result suggests that there may be at least two modality-specific output buffers. Experiment 2 employed the same method of presentation, but spoken recall of both lists was required. In addition, the priority of the lists was manipulated, and articulatory suppression was required in half of the trials. There was an effect of priority and of recall order, together with an interaction between the two. In contrast to the results of FitzGerald and Broadbent (1985a), however, who carried out a similar experiment but with written recall, articulatory suppression significantly reduced the priority and recall order interaction. It is concluded that there is one form of output buffer storage for written or manual output and one for spoken output.     

Immediate memory and simultaneous stimuli

When two sets of digits are presented simultaneously one to one ear and one to the other, the subject may be asked to write them down from immediate memory beginning with those on an ear chosen by the experimenter. He can do this, but any mistakes are usually amongst those on the ear prescribed for later response. If the subject does not know the order of recall until after stimulation, he either shows low efficiency with the same serial order effect, or else normal efficiency with an altered serial order effect.

When the order of recall is known in advance, efficiency is also reduced by altering the time of presentation of the last items to be recalled; and also by inserting irrelevant items. All these facts are consistent with a particular theory of immediate memory.     

The advantages of mathematical modeling over traditional methods in the analysis of category clustering

A mathematical model for the analysis of category clustering is developed and testd. The model, which can be applied to categories of any size, is an extension of a two-item statistical model developed by Batchelder and Riefer (Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 375–397), and is equivalent to their model when categories consist of two items. The model is based on a current theory of clustering which postulates that the learning of a list of category items occurs on different hierarchical levels. Two category list-learning experiments are presented, and the data from these experiments are analyzed using the general statistical model. The first experiment reveals that the probabilities of storing and retrieving a cluster increase with category size, while the learning of items as singletons decreases. The effects of within-category spacing indicate that the storage of clusters decreases while cluster retrievability increases with an increase in input spacing. In the second experiment, the storage and retrieval of clusters are shown to be unaffected by whether the presentation of items is uncued or cued with the name of the category. However, the association of items decreases and the learning of items as singletons increases with uncued presentation. In the final sections, the general statistical model is compared to other methods for the measurement of category clustering. The model is shown to be superior to numerical indices of clustering, since these measures are not based on any theory of clustering, and because unitary measures cannot capture the multiprocess nature of categorized recall. The model is also argued to have certain advantages over other mathematical models that have been applied to category clustering, since these models cannot account for situations in which a portion of the items are clustered while others are learned singularly.     

Temporal aspects of retrieval in short-term serial retention

In three experiments, temporal properties of memory retrieval are studied. Latency of positionally probed recall of a single item is measured as a function of its serial position (SP) in a serial list. The requested SP is indicated by a positional probe, presented immediately after the list. For two organizational structures of the list (i.e., grouped vs. ungrouped lists) the experiments study the effects of precueing the probe position briefly before probe presentation, the cue signal indicating the SPs relevant for recall. The problem of confounded effects on latency of requested SP and of probe-signal location is also investigated. A bow-shaped SP-curve is found for ungrouped lists; precueing reduces RT but does not affect the bowed shape. This argues against selective confounding effects of spatial probe position and also suggests that precueing preactivates memory access. Grouping the items into two sublists eliminates precueing effects for items around the group boundary. Furthermore, precueing is detrimental when SPs at opposite ends of the list are precued. This suggests that the available points of memory access can only be utilized one at a time, so that precueing is not beneficial when the item cannot be reached via the preactivated point. Although the notion of single access to memory is in accord with both positional cueing theory and non-associative hierarchical theories (e.g., Estes 1972), various details of the results are in favor of the first type of explanation.