Monkey memory: same/different concept learning, serial probe acquisition, and probe delay effects

Three rhesus monkeys were trained and tested in a same/different task with six successive sets of 70 item pairs to an 88% accuracy on each set. Their poor initial transfer performance (55% correct) with novel stimuli improved dramatically to 85% correct following daily item changes in the training stimuli. They acquired a serial-probe-recognition (SPR) task with variable (1-6) item list lengths. This SPR acquisition, although gradual, was more rapid for the monkeys than for pigeons similarly trained. Testing with a fixed list length of four items at different delays between the last list item and the probe test item revealed changes in the serial-position function: a recency effect (last items remembered well) for 0-s delay, recency and primacy effects (first and last list items remembered well) for 1-, 2-, and 10-s delays, and only a primacy effect for the longest 30-s delay. These results are compared with similar ones from pigeons and are discussed in relation to theories of memory processing.     

Order and serial position effects in response time with multiple-item probe recognition

We examined the order effect in item-recognition response time, that is, differences in response time for multiple-item probes containing items in the same or in the reverse order as those in the memory set. Experiment 1 used the response condition in which only one item must be positive for a positive response, Experiment 2 used homogeneous probes in which all the items are either positive or negative, and Experiment 3 used the condition in which all the items must be positive. Of particular interest were the serial position variations in order effects for probes containing items that were adjacent in the memory set. We previously found that such effects are an indication of subjective grouping of the memory set and the matching of the probe with these subgroups. The order effect in the one-positive condition was only weak in most cases, but it was strong with homogeneous probes when the memory set was objectively grouped or was ungrouped but with a constant set size. There were also strong order effects in the all-positive condition for probes with items that were nonadjacent in the memory set. Our results are interpreted in terms of a parallel match process based on a distribution over position of items in subjective or objective groups. We account for the origin of the distribution-over-position process in terms of multiple representations of the grouped memory sets. The model assumes that each subgroup is represented in memory several, and perhaps very many, times and that considerable error in item positioning can occur over the multiple representations of any group.     

Auditory list memory and interference processes in monkeys.

Memory of 2 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) was tested in a serial probe recognition task with lists of 4 natural or environmental sounds, different retention intervals, and different manipulations of interference. At short retention intervals, increasing the separation of list items reduced the primacy effect and produced a recency effect. Similar results were shown by increasing interference across lists through item repetitions or making the first 2 list items high-interference items. These results indicated that decreasing first-item performance reduced proactive interference on memory of the last list items. At long (20 s) retention intervals, making the last list items of high interference reduced the recency effect, reduced retroactive interference, and produced a primacy effect. Taken together, interference plays a role in determining the primacy and recency effects of the serial-position function.     

Same—differentjudgments of multiletter strings: Insensitivity to positional bias and spacing

Several recent studies of multiletter matching have included pairs of strings that have-the-same letters in different positions (rearranged pairs). The task can be defined such that these rearranged pairs are correctly classified asdifferent (i.e., subjects respond “same” only if the strings have the same letters in the same positions—the order task) or assame (i.e., subjects respond “same” if the strings have the same letters regardless of their positions—the item task). The order task produces left-to-right serial-position effects, whereas the item task produces U-shaped serial position effects. Because these differences suggest that subjects may be able to exert strategic control over the comparison process, two sets of experiments were designed to test whether or not subjects can change the relative weightings devoted to the respective serial positions. In Experiments 1 and 2, the probability that a mismatch occurred in the different positions was manipulated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the physical spacing between letters, as well as whether or not the spaces were filled with neutral noise characters, was varied. None of the manipulations had much influence on the serial-position effects. Thus, the distinct serial-position effects for the order and item tasks apparently are mandatory and not due-to-any voluntary-comparison strategy.     

The effect of enactment on memory for order

The effect of enactment on memory for serial order was investigated in two experiments. In both experiments a reconstruction task was used to separate order from item information. In Experiment 1 enactment and test information was manipulated between groups. For subjects who had not been informed about the reconstruction test, performance of verbal and motor groups was similar with regard to both serial-position curves and overall performance. For subjects who knew beforehand that they would be tested for memory of the order of the action events, performance in the verbal condition was significantly better than in the motor condition. In Experiment 2, the reversed enactment effect for test-informed subjects was replicated with a within-subjects design. The results agree with Engelkamp and Zimmer's (1984, 1994) position that enactment serves exclusively to enhance item information, and indicate that subjects have less control over the encoding processes when they are enacting than during verbal encoding (cf. Cohen, 1981).     

Serial-position effects on a free-recall task in bilinguals

In this study, we examined mechanisms that underlie free-recall performance in bilinguals' first language (L1) and second language (L2) through the prism of serial-position effects. On free-recall tasks, a typical pattern of performance follows a U-shaped serial-position curve, where items from the beginning of the list (the primacy effect) and items from the end of the list (the recency effect) are recalled with higher accuracy than items from the middle of the list. The present study contrasted serial-position effects on the free-recall task in Korean-English bilinguals' L1 vs. L2 and examined the relationship between an independent working memory (WM) measure and serial-position effects in bilinguals' two languages. Results revealed stronger pre-recency (primacy and middle) effects in L1 than in L2, but similar recency effects in the two languages. A close association was observed between WM and recall performance in the pre-recency region in the L1 but not in the L2. Together, these findings suggest that linguistic knowledge constrains free-recall performance in bilinguals, but only in the pre-recency region.     

Associative retrieval processes in free recall

I present a new method for analyzing associative processes in free recall. While previous research has emphasized the prominence of semantic organization, the present method illustrates the importance of association by contiguity. This is done by examining conditional response probabilities in the output sequence. For a given item recalled, I examine the probability and latency that it follows an item from a nearby or distant input position. These conditional probabilities and latencies, plotted as a function of the lag between studied items, reveal several regularities about output order in free recall. First, subjects tend to recall items more often and more rapidly from adjacent input positions than from remote input positions. Second, subjects are about twice as likely to recall adjacent pairs in the forward than in the backward direction and are significantly faster in doing so. These effects are observed at all positions in the output sequence. The asymmetry effect is theoretically significant because, in cued recall, nearly symmetric retrieval is found at all serial positions (Kahana, 1995; Murdock, 1962). An attempt is made to fit the search of associative memory model (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1980, 1981) with and without symmetric interitem associations to these data. Other models of free recall are also discussed.     

Same-different judgments of multiletter strings: insensitivity to positional bias and spacing

Several recent studies of multiletter matching have included pairs of strings that have the same letters in different positions (rearranged pairs). The task can be defined such that these rearranged pairs are correctly classified as different (i.e., subjects respond "same" only if the strings have the same letters in the same positions--the order task) or as same (i.e., subjects respond "same" if the strings have the same letters regardless of their positions--the item task). The order task produces left-to-right serial-position effects, whereas the item task produces U-shaped serial-position effects. Because these differences suggest that subjects may be able to exert strategic control over the comparison process, two sets of experiments were designed to test whether or not subjects can change the relative weightings devoted to the respective serial positions. In Experiments 1 and 2, the probability that a mismatch occurred in the different positions was manipulated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the physical spacing between letters, as well as whether or not the spaces were filled with neutral noise characters, was varied. None of the manipulations had much influence on the serial-position effects. Thus, the distinct serial-position effects for the order and item tasks apparently are mandatory and not due to any voluntary comparison strategy.     

Serial Order in Spatial Immediate Memory

Serial order effects in spatial memory are investigated in three experiments. In the first an analysis of errors in recall data suggested that immediate transpositions were the most common error and that order errors over 2 or 3 adjacent items accounted for the majority of errors in recall. The first and last serial positions are less error-prone than is the middle position in sets of six and seven items. A second experiment investigated recognition of transpositions and found that immediate transpositions were hardest to recognize but that a traditional serial position effect was not found. This may be due to the difficulty of maintaining one set of spatial items when another set is presented for comparison. A probe experiment, in which subjects were asked to recognize whether a single item came from a memory set and then to assign it to its position in the set indicated that the first and last positions were remembered more accurately than were central positions. The combination of serial order data in recall and position data suggests that there are similarities between serial order and position effects in the verbal and spatial domains and that serial order in spatial sequences is position-based.     

Short-term memory in autism spectrum disorder

Three experiments examined verbal short-term memory in comparison and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participants. Experiment 1 involved forward and backward digit recall. Experiment 2 used a standard immediate serial recall task where, contrary to the digit-span task, items (words) were not repeated from list to list. Hence, this task called more heavily on item memory. Experiment 3 tested short-term order memory with an order recognition test: Each word list was repeated with or without the position of 2 adjacent items swapped. The ASD group showed poorer performance in all 3 experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that group differences were due to memory for the order of the items, not to memory for the items themselves. Confirming these findings, the results of Experiment 3 showed that the ASD group had more difficulty detecting a change in the temporal sequence of the items.     

Rhythmic groups and subjective chunks in memory for melodies

Memory for brief melodic phrases was tested using a short-term recognition-memory paradigm. The five-note phrases were rhythmically separated from each other and presented in lists four phrases in length. A single five-note test item followed each list and either corresponded rhythmically to one of the phrases as presented in the list (within items) or to the last three notes of one phrase and the first two notes of the next (across items). Within items were easier than across items. Slow presentation (3 notes/sec) was slightly easier than fast (6 notes/see). The J-shaped serial position curve typical of short-term memory for verbal material was obtained. The results support the position that rhythmic grouping of input determines subjective chunking and memory storage, facilitating the recognition of test items chunked in the same way as list items.     

Serial-position effects for lures in short-term recognition memory

Serial-position curves for targets in short-term recognition memory show modest primacy and marked recency. To construct serial-position curves for lures, we tested orthographic neighbours of study words and assigned each lure to the position of its studied neighbour. The curve for lures was parallel to that for targets. In Experiment 2, only half the lures were neighbours of study words; the other half overlapped a study word by a single letter. The serial-position curve for neighbours of study items was now flatter than the curve for targets. The results are inconsistent with theories in which any factor that benefits targets must hinder lures. Instead, they demand a decision mechanism that assigns a role to item-specific information, as well as to general familiarity information, such as dual-process theory.     

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.     

Concreteness effects in different tasks: implications for models of short-term memory

This study investigates concreteness effects in tasks requiring short-term retention. Concreteness effects were assessed in serial recall, matching span, order reconstruction, and free recall. Each task was carried out both in a control condition and under articulatory suppression. Our results show no dissociation between tasks that do and do not require spoken output. This argues against the redintegration hypothesis according to which lexical-semantic effects in short-term memory arise only at the point of production. In contrast, concreteness effects were modulated by task demands that stressed retention of item versus order information. Concreteness effects were stronger in free recall than in serial recall. Suppression, which weakens phonological representations, enhanced the concreteness effect with item scoring. In a matching task, positive effects of concreteness occurred with open sets but not with closed sets of words. Finally, concreteness effects reversed when the task asked only for recall of word positions (as in the matching task), when phonological representations were weak (because of suppression), and when lexical semantic representations overactivated (because of closed sets). We interpret these results as consistent with a model where phonological representations are crucial for the retention of order, while lexical-semantic representations support maintenance of item identity in both input and output buffers.     

Concreteness effects in different tasks: Implications for models of short-term memory

This study investigates concreteness effects in tasks requiring short-term retention. Concreteness effects were assessed in serial recall, matching span, order reconstruction, and free recall. Each task was carried out both in a control condition and under articulatory suppression. Our results show no dissociation between tasks that do and do not require spoken output. This argues against the redintegration hypothesis according to which lexical-semantic effects in short-term memory arise only at the point of production. In contrast, concreteness effects were modulated by task demands that stressed retention of item versus order information. Concreteness effects were stronger in free recall than in serial recall. Suppression, which weakens phonological representations, enhanced the concreteness effect with item scoring. In a matching task, positive effects of concreteness occurred with open sets but not with closed sets of words. Finally, concreteness effects reversed when the task asked only for recall of word positions (as in the matching task), when phonological representations were weak (because of suppression), and when lexical semantic representations overactivated (because of closed sets). We interpret these results as consistent with a model where phonological representations are crucial for the retention of order, while lexical-semantic representations support maintenance of item identity in both input and output buffers.     

Dissociable lexical and phonological influences on serial recognition and serial recall

The impact of the lexicality of memory items on memory performance was compared in two paradigms, serial recall and serial recognition. Experiments 1 to 3 tested 7- and 8-year-old children. Memory accuracy was only mildly impaired in lists containing nonwords compared with words in a serial recognition task involving judgements of whether the items in two sequences were in the same order (Experiment 1), although a substantial advantage for word over nonword items from the same stimulus pool was found in serial recall (Experiment 2). A stronger influence of lexicality on serial recall than serial recognition was further demonstrated in Experiments 3A and 3B, and in 4A and 4B using adult participants. These experiments also established comparable degrees of sensitivity to the phonological similarity of the memory sequences in the two paradigms. The phonological similarity effect in serial recall was found to arise from increased phoneme order errors, whereas the lexicality effect was due principally to the greater frequency of phoneme identity errors for nonwords. It is proposed that the lexicality effect originates in the redintegration of item information just prior to recall, and that this process is largely bypassed in serial recognition.     

Neuroanatomical correlates of category-specific semantic disorders: A critical survey

Current models of verbal short‐term memory (STM) propose various mechanisms for serial order. These include a gradient of activation over items, associations between items, and associations between items and their positions relative to the start or end of a sequence. We compared models using a variant of Hebb's procedure in which immediate serial recall of a sequence improves if the sequence is presented more than once. However, instead of repeating a complete sequence, we repeated different aspects of serial order information common to training lists and a subsequent test list. In Experiment 1, training lists repeated all the item–item pairings in the test list, with or without the position–item pairings in the test list. Substantial learning relative to a control condition was observed only when training lists repeated item–item pairs with position–item pairs, and position was defined relative to the start rather than end of a sequence. Experiment 2 attempted to analyse the basis of this learning effect further by repeating fragments of the test list during training, where fragments consisted of either isolated position–item pairings or clusters of both position–item and item–item pairings. Repetition of sequence fragments led to only weak learning effects. However, where learning was observed it was for specific position–item pairings. We conclude that positional cues play an important role in the coding of serial order in memory but that the information required to learn a sequence goes beyond position–item associations. We suggest that whereas STM for a novel sequence is based on positional cues, learning a sequence involves the development of some additional representation of the sequence as a whole.     

Three more semantic serial position functions and a SIMPLE explanation

There are innumerable demonstrations of serial position functions—with characteristic primacy and recency effects—in episodic tasks, but there are only a handful of such demonstrations in semantic memory tasks, and those demonstrations have used only two types of stimuli. Here, we provide three more examples of serial position functions when recalling from semantic memory. Participants were asked to reconstruct the order of (1) two cartoon theme song lyrics, (2) the seven Harry Potter books, and (3) two sets of movies, and all three demonstrations yielded conventional-looking serial position functions with primacy and recency effects. The data were well-fit by SIMPLE, a local distinctiveness model of memory that was originally designed to account for serial position effects in short- and long-term episodic memory. According to SIMPLE, serial position functions in both episodic and semantic memory tasks arise from the same type of processing: Items that are more separated from their close neighbors in psychological space at the time of recall will be better remembered. We argue that currently available evidence suggests that serial position functions observed when recalling items that are presumably in semantic memory arise because of the same processes as those observed when recalling items that are presumably in episodic memory.     

Modulating the phonological similarity effect: The contribution of interlist similarity and lexicality

The classical phonological similarity effect (PSE) was studied with words and nonwords in two immediate serial recall (ISR) tasks. The relative contributions of intralist and interlist interference were compared, and differential effects on item and order memory were observed. PSE occurred with words and was reversed with nonwords. In addition, PSE was modulated by interlist similarity, which enhanced recall of rhyme items and impaired recall of distinct items. Finally, interlist similarity reduced item recall of words, whereas it improved serial recall of nonwords. The latter finding rules out the hypothesis that the reverse PSE for nonwords is due to interlist interference. It is concluded that two opposing effects of phonological intralist similarity cause the interaction between PSE and lexicality in ISR. With words, the positive effect on item recall is usually masked by a much more disruptive effect on position accuracy. With nonwords, however, the positive effect often masks the negative one. These findings are discussed in relation to current models of verbal short-term memory.     

Evidence for similar principles in episodic and semantic memory: The presidential serial position function

When people recall a list of items that they have just experienced (an episodic memory task), the resulting serial position function looks strikingly similar to that observed when people are asked to recall the presidents of the United States (a semantic memory task). Despite the similarity in appearance, there is disagreement about whether the two functions arise from the same processes. A local distinctiveness model of memory, SIMPLE, successfully fit the presidential data using two underlying dimensions: one corresponding to item (or presidential) distinctiveness and the other to order (or positional) distinctiveness. According to the model, presidential primacy and recency are due to the same mechanisms that give rise to primacy and recency effects in both shortand long-term episodic memory. All of these primacy and recency effects reflect the relative distinctiveness principle (Surprenant & Neath, 2009): Items will be well remembered to the extent that they are more distinct than competing items at the time of retrieval.