Hypermnesia in free recall and cued recall

In three experiments, categorized lists and both free recall and cued recall tests were used to examine hypermnesia. In Experiment 1, materials were drawn from obvious and nonobvious categories in an attempt to vary the amount of relational processing at encoding. The study materials in Experiment 2 consisted of a long word list that comprised several exemplars from each of a number of common categories. In Experiment 3, a single exemplar was drawn from each of 45 categories. In each experiment, similar magnitudes of hypermnesia were obtained on free and cued recall tests. Examination of the specific items recalled across tests indicated that similar processes underlie the hypermnesic effect for both test conditions. Implications of the results for extant accounts of the hypermnesic effect are discussed. It is concluded that the dynamics of retrieval processes change in a systematic fashion across repeated tests and the retention interval following study and that an adequate account of the nature of these changes in retrieval dynamics is essential to our understanding of hypermnesia and related phenomena.     

The order of recall and the recall of order

Adelphi University, Garden City, Long Island, New York 11530 Four experiments are described. The first three lend support to the assertion that retrieval from short-term storage (STS) is improved, possibly to a maximum, if items are recalled in their originally presented order. In the fourth experiment a modified recall condition was introduced in which written position of recall reflected order information. Although the subject was not constrained to recall the items in order under this modified recall condition, both item and order retention increased in comparison to both free and serial recall conditions. Within the theoretical framework adopted, the results indicate that retrieval from STS is improved by recalling in order; while long-term storage (LTS) is reduced by the constraint to recall in order. However, LTS is increased by the retention of order information when recalling in order is not required.     

Vocalization-at-presentation and immediate recall, with varying recall methods

In a free recall situation, written recall is superior to spoken recall, and evidence is adduced suggesting that this may be partly due to the fact that this method of recall permits greater freedom in ordering the material. Evidence is also adduced suggesting that voicing the material at presentation gives superior recall because of a facilitatory effect on storage. This interpretation is supported by the finding that the advantage of vocalizing is not affected by prior knowledge as to whether recall is to be oral or written, and by the suggestion that vocalized lists are more resistant to intra-trial interference than nonvocalized lists. In addition, two earlier observations were confirmed: first, that the advantage of voicing is most marked at fast rates of presentation; and secondly, voicing gives rise to a higher proportion of acoustic errors relative to the number of items incorrectly attempted.     

Free association,free recall,and stimulated recall compared

Three primary methods of recall (free association, free recall, stimulated recall) and two modifications of them (modified free association, modified stimulated recall) were defined by use of three variables: (a) presence or absence of prior laboratory training, (b) presence or absence of E controlled test stimulation, and (c) test instructions to free associate or to recall Data obtained from approximately 300 Ss and an earlier set of 600 revealed the differential effectiveness of all three primary methods in recall and misrecall.     

A developmental study of relations between free recall, cued recall, and recall of incidental material

Six-, 9-, 17–19-, 45–55-, and 65-year-old subjects were shown 16 slides depicting one colored object and two uncolored context objects in a common setting, the task being to learn the names of the colored objects. Free and cued recall of both colored and context items were tested, the context objects being used as retrieval cues for the colored ones, and vice versa. The relative superiority of cued recall to free recall decreased regularly with increasing age. In the oldest subjects the level of free recall of TBR-objects was still fairly high, the level of recall of context objects being very low. The results support the hypothesis that adults encode nominally irrelevant context materials to a decreasing extent with increasing age, and that memory traces of young people in this sense are "richer", i.e., contain a greater number/variety of potential retrieval cues, than those of the elderly.     

Familiarity and free recall

Using stimulus material drawn from a single category, it is shown that formal recognition tests yield superior performance to recall when the category cannot be completely enumerated by the subjects, but not otherwise. Furthermore, within these categories recognition is superior only if unfamiliar items are selected as stimuli. These findings fit the theory that when recalling subjects attempt to scan the relevant category and “recognize” those items employed as stimuli.     

Memory for previous recall: a comparison of free and cued recall

Case studies of individuals who claimed to have recovered previously repressed memories of abuse during situations that involved memory cueing revealed that some individuals had discussed abuse with others during an earlier time period. Termed the ‘forgot‐it‐all‐along’ effect, this phenomenon has legal implications for statutes of limitations. Two experiments provide evidence for differences between free recall and more directed (recognition or cued recall) test conditions in the accuracy of memories for previous recall. Participants more often erred by claiming they had not previously remembered recognized (Experiment 1) or cued (Experiment 2) sentences than freely recalled sentences, and this difference was obtained even when the number of remembered sentences was equivalent across conditions (Experiment 2). These studies document that memory for previous recollection is less accurate for cued memories even when remembered events do not produce feelings of shock or surprise. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: The serial nature of recall and the effect of test expectancy

In two experiments, we examined the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall (ISR), using a within-subjects (Experiment 1) and a between-subjects (Experiment 2) design. In both experiments, participants read aloud lists of eight words and were precued or postcued to respond using free recall or ISR. The serial position curves were U-shaped for free recall and showed extended primacy effects with little or no recency for ISR, and there was little or no difference between recall for the precued and the postcued conditions. Critically, analyses of the output order showed that although the participants started their recall from different list positions in the two tasks, the degree to which subsequent recall was serial in a forward order was strikingly similar. We argue that recalling in a serial forward order is a general characteristic of memory and that performance on ISR and free recall is underpinned by common memory mechanisms.     

Retrieval difficulty and subsequent recall

The notion that difficult initial retrieval facilitates subsequent recall was tested in a situation similar to Brown and McNeill’s (1966) tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) paradigm. After 50 trials, Ss were unexpectedly asked to recall all the target words. It was found that words retrieved with difficulty in the definition session were relatively well recalled in the final test. Further analyses revealed that the critical factor for good recall was the presence of a TOT state, or a strong feeling of knowing the word, during initial retrieval. An explanation in terms of activation of the word’s attributes was suggested.     

Recognition and recall in amnesics

Although there is considerable agreement that performance in direct memory tasks (e.g., recall, recognition) is more disrupted by amnesia than performance in indirect memory tasks (e.g., mirror reading, word completion), one may be able to further circumscribe the deficit within the domain of direct memory tasks. The present article explores whether recall is disproportionately disrupted by amnesia compared to recognition. If amnesia affects memory uniformly across different direct memory measures, recall of normal controls should not differ from the recall of amnesics when recognition scores of these two groups are equated. On the other hand, if recall is disproportionately disrupted, normal recall should be superior to amnesic recall even when recognition is equated. The present study equated amnesic recognition with that of controls by providing amnesics with 8 s of study time and normal subjects with 0.5 s. Amnesics with Korsakoff's syndrome, amnesics with other etiologies, and appropriate controls were examined. Normal recall was superior to amnesic recall even when no differences were found in recognition. The results further specify the selective nature of amnesia.     

Regulatory focus and affective recall

In two studies, we tested the impact of regulatory focus on recalled affect for past academic outcomes. Because promotion focus concerns achieving gains, it should be related to greater recalled positive affect. In contrast, prevention focus concerns avoiding losses, and should be related to greater recalled negative affect. In Study 1, promotion focus led to greater recalled positive affect for positive events, while prevention focus led to greater recalled negative affect regardless of event valence. In Study 2, promotion focus increased recalled positive affect for both positive and negative events, whereas prevention focus increased recalled negative affect for both positive and negative events. These studies demonstrate that current motivation can alter memory for past affective experiences; the regulatory focus ascribed to a previous event changes the extent to which people remember their emotional experience. Implications are discussed.     

Right-ear advantage and delayed recall

Two studies were performed using monaural presentation of verbal material to test for a right-ear advantage (REA) in recall. It was hypothesized that a delayed recall task and examination of the serial position curve would be a more sensitive test for ear asymmetries than those used in previous studies. In Experiment 1, 30 right-handed male subjects were given lists of words to recall, presented to either the left or right ear, with language chatter, baroque music, or no stimulus concurrently presented to the opposite ear. Both immediate and delayed recall were assessed. The results indicated that the strongest REAs appeared in delayed recall. Moreover, the REAs occurred regardless of the stimulus conditions co-occurring in the other ear. Experiment 2 was done to test whether the REAs in the delayed recall were due to rehearsal biases. Twenty-four right-handed male subjects recalled lists of words with standard instructions and instructions to recall in the reverse order of input (limiting rehearsal). The results indicated that the backward instructions limited and controlled rehearsal and, hence, input to long-term storage; the REAs occurred in delayed recall under all instructional conditions.