Inverting the modality effect in serial recall

Differences in recall ability between immediate serial recall of auditorily and visually presented verbal material have traditionally been considered restricted to the end of to-be-recalled lists, the recency section of the serial position curve (e.g., Crowder & Morton, 1969). Later studies showed that--under certain circumstances--differences in recall between the two modalities can be observed across the whole of the list (Frankish, 1985). However in all these studies the advantage observed is for recall of material presented in the auditorily modality. Six separate conditions across four experiments demonstrate that a visual advantage can be obtained with serial recall if participants are required to recall the list in two distinct sections using serial recall. Judged on a list-wide basis, the visual advantage is of equivalent size to the auditory advantage of the classical modality effect. The results demonstrate that differences in representation of auditory and visual verbal material in short-term memory persist beyond lexical and phonological categorization and are problematic for current theories of the modality effect.     

Processing of words presented simultaneously to eye and ear

The simultaneous processing of auditorily and visually presented messages was examined in three experiments. Subjects searched lists of words for a target word while processing auditorily presented information. Across conditions, subjects searched for (a) target words in a list of words presented auditorily, (b) the same target words in lists presented visually, (c) a member of a taxonomic category in a visually presented list, and (d) a rhyme in a list of words presented visually. The level of processing of a simultaneous auditory message varied across experiments. In experiment 1, subjects shadowed lists of digits. In Experiment 2, subjects reported the antonym of each word in a list. In Experiment 3, subjects named the taxonomic category of each word in a list. In all three experiments, subject had high detection rates for target words presented visually and for category targets but low detection rates for target words presented auditorily and for rhyme targets. These results suggest that processing the semantic properties, but not the acoustic properties, of words presented to the visual modality is independent of simultaneous processing in the auditory modality. Implication for models of selective attention are discussed.     

Organization by modality,language, and category compared

Summary An experiment was presented to test a functionalistic interpretation of the modality effect. This shows a superior recall performance for auditorily as opposed to visually presented verbal information. A total of 60 subjects were presented with mixed-mode (auditory-visual words), mixed-language (Swedish-English words), or mixed-category (category-unrelated words) lists, and were asked to recall the words of each list in any preferred order. The degree of organization according to modality, language, or category and the recall performance were measured. Organization by modality was significantly higher than organization by language or category as predicted by the functionalistic view proposed. The recall performance obtained for auditory and visual words differed in a way predicted by the functionalistic view.     

Paradoxical effects of presentation modality on false memory.

Two experiments are reported in which the effects of presentation modality on false memory in recall and recognition are studied. False recall and recognition of critical targets are lower for non-presented items related to a study list when that study list is presented visually than when presented auditorily. This pattern of low levels of false memory for critical targets holds even when participants read the visually presented study items aloud. These results suggest that recollection of visual detail plays a role in the prevention of false memory. However, both the hit rates (true memory) and the false-alarm rates to weakly related distractors (non-critical targets) were higher for visual presentation than for auditory presentation, suggesting that more than one mechanism may underlie false recognition.     

Does the testing effect depend on presentation modality?

We examined whether the testing effect generalizes to an auditory presentation modality. Five lists of unrelated words (Experiment 1) and related words (Experiment 2) were presented to participants, half of whom studied them visually and half studied them auditorily. Participants in the study-only condition performed a short distractor task following lists 1–4, whereas those in the testing condition completed a short distractor task and then attempted to recall each list. Both groups were subsequently tested on List 5 and on all five lists 30 min later. In both experiments, we found a testing effect for both List 5 and for the final cumulative recall test. However, the effect did not interact with study modality, despite the fact that proactive interference was greater following auditory study. These results have important implications for educational practice, suggesting that initial testing is important for materials presented in auditory as well as visual formats.     

The auditory recency advantage in longer term free recall is not enhanced by recalling prerecency items first

Gardiner and Gregg (1979) showed that in a free-recall paradigm in which each list word is embedded in a continuous stream of subject-vocalized distractor activity, recency recall was greater when the words were presented auditorily rather than visually. The experiment described here showed that this auditory advantage persisted even when list and distractor items were both spoken at a controlled pace by the experimenter, and that it was little influenced by instructions to give priority in recall either to the beginning or to the end of the list. These results strengthen the conclusion that this effect cannot be accommodated by any echoic memory theory and, because the effect was not enhanced when prerecency items were recalled first, demonstrate an additional difference between it and the somewhat similar auditory advantage found in immediate recall.     

The storage of physical and name properties in short-term visual memory

Two experiments investigated the hypothesis that short-term visual memory is based primarily on physical features of the visual input. Subjects were required to recall visually presented figures or the names of those figures presented either visually or aurally at a number of different retention intervals. Subjects shadowed words during the retention interval presented aurally in Experiment I and visually in Experiment II. In both experiments, figures were recalled better than names and no differences in recall of names were found due to presentation modality. Recall of both names conditions showed a steady decline across retention intervals whereas recall of figures remained at a relatively high level. These findings were interpreted as providing further support for the existence of short-term visual memory not subject to auditory recoding and based primarily on physical features of the input. It was suggested that such visual memory is limited in capacity so that input exceeding this capacity is recoded into an auditory-verbal-linguistic form.     

Presentation modality,rehearsal-prevention conditions,and auditory confusions in tests of short-term memory

Ss were presented four-letter sequences either auditorily or visually and asked for ordered recall after 0, 2.1, 4.2, 8.4, or 12.6 sec of digit categorization. Three different rehearsal-prevention conditions were required during presentation of the memory set: categorizing, suppressing (saying "dah"), or pronouncing each letter. Recall was worst after categorizing, best after pronouncing. Auditory presentation led to better recall after no delay but more rapid forgetting than visual presentation, regardless of the rehearsal-prevention condition. These results, and analyses of auditory confusions, are inconsistent with a view of memory which asserts that sensory information is encoded auditorily regardless of presentation modality or vocalization behavior during presentation.     

Effects of same-modality interference on immediate serial recall of auditory and visual information.

Two studies investigated the effects of same-modality interference on the immediate serial recall of auditorily and visually presented stimuli. Typically, research in which this task is used has been conducted in quiet rooms, excluding auditory information that is extraneous to the auditorily presented stimuli. However, visual information such as background items clearly within the subject's view have not been excluded during visual presentation. Therefore, in both the present studies, the authors used procedures that eliminated extra-list visual interference and introduced extra-list auditory interference. When same-modality interference was eliminated, weak visual recency effects were found, but they were smaller than those that were generated by auditorily presented items. Further, mid-list and end-of-list recall of visually presented stimuli was unaffected by the amount of interfering visual information. On the other hand, the introduction of auditory interference increased mid-list recall of auditory stimuli. The results of Experiment 2 showed that the mid-list effect occurred with a moderate, but not with a minimal or maximal, level of auditory interference, indicating that moderate amounts of auditory interference had an alerting effect that is not present in typical visual interference.     

A functional interpretation of the modality effect

A functional conceptualization of the modality effect is presented, i. e. of the empirical finding showing a superior short-term retention of auditorily as opposed to visually presented verbal information. This theoretical view proposes that memory performance should be regarded as a function of an interaction between specific demands of the memory task and available cognitive capabilities. This notion is contrasted with two existing interpretations of the modality effect stating larger processing or storage capacities for a hypothetical memory system when information is auditorily as opposed to visually presented. Four experiments are reported, which all demonstrate the viability of the present view: The nature of the recall difference between modalities varies as a function of the interaction between task demands and cognitive capabilities and not as a function of certain properties of a hypothetical memory system.     

Intrusive effects of implicitly processed information on explicit memory

This study described the interference of implicitly processed information on the memory for explicitly processed information. Participants studied a list of words either auditorily or visually under instructions to remember the words (explicit study). They were then visually presented another word list under instructions which facilitate implicit but not explicit processing. Following a distractor task, memory for the explicit study list was tested with either a visual or auditory recognition task that included new words, words from the explicit study list, and words implicitly processed. Analysis indicated participants both failed to recognize words from the explicit study list and falsely recognized words that were implicitly processed as originating from the explicit study list. However, this effect only occurred when the testing modality was visual, thereby matching the modality for the implicitly processed information, regardless of the modality of the explicit study list. This "modality effect" for explicit memory was interpreted as poor source memory for implicitly processed information and in light of the procedures used. as well as illustrating an example of "remembering causing forgetting."     

Repetition learning in the immediate serial recall of visual and auditory materials

In 5 experiments, a Hebb repetition effect, that is, improved immediate serial recall of an (unannounced) repeating list, was demonstrated in the immediate serial recall of visual materials, even when use of phonological short-term memory was blocked by concurrent articulation. The learning of a repeatedly presented letter list in one modality (auditory or visual) did not transfer to give improved performance on the same list in the other modality. This result was not replicated for word lists, however, for which asymmetric transfer was observed. Inferences are made about the structure of short-term memory and about the nature of the Hebb repetition effect.     

The effects of word length and phonemic similarity in young children's short-term memory

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that word length and phonemic similarity effects in young children's recall with auditory presentation result from verbal output, and not: (1) rehearsal in the case of word length effects; (2) confusion at input in the case of phonemic similarity effects. In an auditorily presented probed recall task, where there were no full verbal output requirements, children aged five years did not show either effect. Children aged seven years showed both word length and phonemic similarity effects. It was concluded that, in children of age five, word length effects can not necessarily be taken as evidence for rehearsal, nor can the phonemic similarity effect be assumed to result from confusion at input. It is suggested that the process of saying a list verbally may cause both of these effects, and that care must be taken to distinguish input and output processes in the development of children's short-term memory.     

短时记忆中的范畴组织和通道组织的比较

本文通过设置不同的线索条件对短时记忆中范畴组织和通道组织进行了比较研究。实验采用了通道线索组、范围线索组和混合线索组三种条件,并设置了五种词表比例。在通道线索组中,每个词表是同范畴字词,但一半用视觉呈现,一半用听觉呈现;在范畴线索组中,两类词分属两个不同的词义范畴,但以相同通道呈现;在混合线索组中,两类不同范畴的词,各有一半分别用视觉和听觉呈现。结果表明在三种线索条件下,ＡＲＣ分值差异显著,表现为     

A developmental study of the Prelinguistic Auditory Store (PAS)

Lists of digits 5 and 7 items in length were presented to second graders, sixth graders, and low-IQ sixth graders in either the visual or auditory modality. Half the auditory lists were followed by the redundant nonrecalled, auditorily presented word “recall” which served as a list suffix. The second graders had the most errors in the ordered recall task followed by the low-IQ sixth- and normal sixth-graders in that order. The size of the modality and suffix effects for the various groups seemed to indicate that, for the younger subjects, a larger proportion of the recall after auditory presentation comes from the Prelinguistic Auditory Store than for the older subjects.     

Modality effects in retrieval of information from short-term memory

Retrieval from short-term memory was studied in a reaction time task, Ss decided whether or not a target item was present in a memorized list. When modality of presentation was manipulated, fastest reaction times resulted if the target item and all memory items were presented auditorily. All conditions involving pure visual presentation or mixed auditory-visual presentation resulted in reaction times which were longer than those for the pure auditory conditions out which did not differ from each other. This suggests that retrieval can be trom either a precategorical auditory memory or a postcategorical memory which does not preserve the sensory features of the memorized material.     

Learning and retrieval rate of words presented auditorily and visually

Mode of presentation (visual or auditory) of a multitrial free recall test is stressed as an important factor in improving the diagnosis of certain neurological patients. For further use in neuropsychological research, an experiment was carried out using normal subjects, in which the effects of presentation mode and order of modality were investigated. There were no differential effects of these variables on several parameters, such as the number of words recalled and the learning curve. The time needed for the responses in immediate recall was the same in both auditory and visual conditions. In delayed recall, however, the interresponse times were significantly shorter when words had been presented auditorily than when presented visually. The results are discussed in light of further application in the field of neuropsychology.     

Order of recall,output interference,and the modality effect

Summary In free recall, the order of recall following auditory and visual presentation differs; it tends to be forward for auditory but backward for visual. The first two experiments examined to what extent this difference in output order could account for the modality effect (i.e., a superior retention of auditorily as opposed to visually presented words). Order of recall was manipulated using postcued (Experiment 1) and precued (Experiment 2) procedures. Whereas the modality effect was unaffected with postcueing it was reduced to approximately half its size with precueing. It was concluded from these two studies that although output order cannot explain the whole modality effect, it does seem to play an important role for part of the effect in some situations. Experiments 3 and 4 used a mixed-mode and a probed recall procedure, respectively, to examine the role of output interference in modality experiments. The data suggested that output interference effects were non-monotonic; they were greater for visual than for auditory early in recall, but apparently no different later in recall. The two-store hypotheses (Murdock and Walker, 1969) was elaborated slightly to account for these results.This research was supported by Research Grants APA 146 from the National Research Council of Canada and OMHF 164 from the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. We would like to thank Doris Glavnov and Janet Metcalfe for help with the data analyses.     

Adult age differences in distinctive processing: the modality effect on false recall

Age differences in distinctive processing were investigated by examining the effects of study presentation modality on false recall in younger and older adults using the Deese/Roediger and McDermott paradigm. Participants were presented with study words either visually or auditorily. Older adults did not show the typical reduction in false recall after visual, compared to auditory, study presentation (R.E. Smith & R.R. Hunt, 1998). The authors interpret these results as evidence of reduced distinctive processing on the part of older adults.     

Memory storage and retrieval within and across modalities in children

Twenty-four kindergarten and fourth grade children were asked to locate a display card which had been visually or verbally presented. A probe, which identified the card to be located, was presented verbally and visually equally often. The children's ability to recall the location of an item did not differ as a function of the modality to which the material was presented. Nor was recall significantly affected when the presentation modality differed from the probe modality, suggesting that children as young as 5 can cross these sensory modalities to retrieve material with no loss in accuracy. Serial position curves suggest that the verbal and visual material is not stored in a common intersensory store. The primacy effect is found to be stronger with visually presented material and the recency effect strongest with auditorily presented material. Probe modality did not influence the serial position curves.