The Ranschburg effect: The role of guessing strategies

The Ranschburg effect refers to the finding of impaired serial recall of items repeated on a list. One account attributes this effect to the use of a strategy where subjects avoid using as guesses stimuli that they had recalled elsewhere on the list. Support for this interpretation is reported here. The Ranschburg effect is eliminated when subjects are instructed to avoid guessing. Also, the Ranschburg effect is found in partial report only when subjects are told that the crucial item occurred elsewhere on the list.     

How is the serial order of a verbal sequence coded? Some comparisons between models

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.     

The contributions of encoding,retention, and recall to the Hebb effect

The article reports an experiment testing whether the Hebb repetition effect—the gradual improvement of immediate serial recall when the same list is repeated several times—depends on overt recall of the repeated lists. Previous reports which suggest that recall is critical confound the recall manipulation with retention interval. The present experiment orthogonally varies retention interval (0 or 9 s) and whether the list is to be recalled after the retention interval. Hebb repetition learning is assessed in a final test phase. A repetition effect was obtained in all four experimental conditions; it was larger for recalled than non-recalled lists, whereas retention interval had no effect. The results show that encoding is sufficient to generate cumulative long-term learning, which is strengthened by recall. Rehearsal, if it takes place in the retention interval at all, does not have the same effect on long-term learning as overt recall.     

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.     

Bartlett revisited: Direct comparison of repeated reproduction and serial reproduction techniques

Bartlett developed the procedures of repeated reproduction (the same person repeatedly recalling information) and serial reproduction (people transmitting information from one person to another). Our experiment directly compared recall accuracy across these two techniques, which has not previously been reported, using DRM word lists. Recall of the initial study list words remained constant across repeated reproductions but declined markedly across serial reproductions. In contrast, recall of associated words that were not originally studied (i.e. critical words) was steady across both conditions. Because more of the original list words were forgotten across each link of the serial reproduction chain, the proportion of critical items recalled (relative to list words) increased significantly as the list passed between people. Using output bound scoring, serial reproduction resulted in lower accuracy than repeated reproduction by the final recall trial. Our results are broadly consistent with Bartlett's (1932) informal observations: Serial reproduction produces greater forgetting of the original material than does repeated reproduction and also leads to greater distortion relative to the proportion of correct material recalled.     

Retrieval processes for serial order information

Three experiments sought to specify how list structure and rehearsal pattern influence the retrieval of well-learned serial order information. Subjects learned a serial list of 12 words followed by a probed recall task measuring response time. Adjacent list items served as retrieval cues to permit probing of an item by cues which maintained or crossed semantic or rehearsal boundaries. Evidence for structure in serial recall was inferred from the large cue format effects on response time. Such effects were found to be consistent with the semantic relationships in categorized lists and the acquisition rehearsal pattern in unrelated lists. When rehearsal grouping and semantic relatedness were in conflict. the cue format effects conformed mainly to the rehearsal pattern. Extended practice over five sessions did not eliminate these effects for many of the serial items. These results suggest that the structure of the serial list. whether based on previous associations or present rehearsal patterns. can provide a basis for retrieval. A hierarchical search model based on item and order information provided good fits of the data. The model suggested that response time varies with cue formats because cues differ in their efficiency at directing search to the correct response in the list structure. The structure. which is acquired at the time of learning. determines cue efficiency and. hence. the subsequent effects upon response time.     

Serial position phenomena: Training and retrieval effects

With successive free recall lists primacy items are usually among the first to be reported on the initial list. Recency items will then take over and be first reported on later lists. This retrieval shift was studied under varied list conditions designed to counteract ordinary position effects, and proved to be a stable and resistent effect. One experiment had subjects practice on five different free recall lists over three trials, and the results agreed with the hypothesis that primacy reduction is caused by proactive interference rather than by the primacy to recency report shift. Experiments of the usual one-session laboratory type have consistently failed to show practice effects on serial lists with incompatible spatial and temporal order cues. In a case study of five subjects examined over a period of three months only slight improvement on single-trial lists was observed. However, when naive subjects were given four successive trials with the same type of cue-conflict list, prominent practice effects were easily demonstrated. Observations confirmed the assumption that repeated presentations of items located in middle list positions may counteract the privilege of primacy and recency positions. When repetitions were made within contracting and expanding lists, the results proved that active anchoring, making itself visible as primacy effects, is feasible with contracting lists but difficult with expanding lists. Active performance of list learning strategies generally results in primacy effects; whereas passive shortcut procedures, in learning and retrieval of information, produce recency effects. Predominant recency effects are symptoms of difficult task situations only partially mastered by the learner; primacy effects point to more successful elaboration. Overall, serial position effects do not seem to be due to structural memory stores so much as to the working of cognitive strategy factors. A problem-solving theory was presented as an alternative to information-processing models of serial learning and memory.     

Forward and backward recall: different response time patterns,same retrieval order

How do people retrieve information in forward and backward recall? To address this issue, we examined response times in directional recall as a function of serial position and list length. Participants memorized lists of four to six words and entered responses at the keyboard. Recall direction was postcued. Response times exhibited asymmetry in terms of direction. In forward recall, response times peaked at the first position, leveling off for subsequent positions. Response times were slower in backward recall than in forward recall and exhibited an inverse U-shaped function with an initial slowdown followed by a continuous speedup. These asymmetries have implications for theoretical models of retrieval in serial recall, including temporal-code, rule-based, and network models. The response time pattern suggests that forward recall proceeds in equal steps across positions, whereas backward recall involves repeated covert cycles of forward recall. Thus, retrieval in both directions involves a forward search.     

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.     

Opposing effects of phonological similarity on item and order memory of words and nonwords in the serial recall task

This study shows that the classical phonological similarity effect (PSE) in immediate serial recall is critically affected by the lexicality of list items, the type of phonological similarity involved, and the scoring procedure. PSE was present in the serial recall score when phonologically distinct words were compared to words that share the middle vowel and end consonant (rhyming lists). PSE was absent in the serial recall score when phonologically distinct words were compared to words that share the initial and final consonants (consonant frame lists). There was a reversal of PSE in serial recall of nonwords when comparing distinct lists to both types of similar lists. Recall accuracy on the other hand was higher for distinct lists regardless of lexicality. Item errors dominated in relation to order errors in the case of nonwords, whereas order errors dominated in relation to item errors in the case of words. Furthermore, order errors were more common for phonologically similar lists, whereas item errors were more common for phonologically distinct lists. This may be the result of intra‐list and inter‐list interference, respectively. The dominance of the former error type may cause a classical PSE, whereas the dominance of the latter error type may cause a reversal of PSE. Finally, an item identification task yielded no evidence of an association between intra‐list interference and discriminability of items in a list.     

The Ranschburg effect: Stimulus variables and scoring criterion*

The influence of stimulus variables on recall of intraserially repeated items was investigated with a parametric manipulation of the rate of presentation (.4, .8, or 1.6 sec/item), modality of presentation (auditory or visual), and sequence length (7 or 10 items long). The results indicated that the Ranschburg effect, poorer recall of repeated items than of corresponding control items, is relatively insensitive to stimulus manipulations. The Ranschburg effect was found to be localized primarily at the position of the second occurrence of the repeated item. The influence of the repeated items did not generalize to the other (nonrepeated) items of the sequence. Differences in the Ranschburg effect as a function of the scoring criterion were discussed. The results were interpreted as being consistent with a guessing bias interpretation of the Ranschburg effect.     

Retrieval during learning facilitates subsequent memory encoding

In multiple-list learning, retrieval during learning has been suggested to improve recall of the single lists by enhancing list discrimination and, at test, reducing interference. Using electrophysiological, oscillatory measures of brain activity, we examined to what extent retrieval during learning facilitates list encoding. Subjects studied 5 lists of items in anticipation of a final cumulative recall test and did either a retrieval or a no-retrieval task between study of the lists. Retrieval was from episodic memory (recall of the previous list), semantic memory (generation of exemplars from an unrelated category), or short-term memory (2-back task). Behaviorally, all 3 forms of retrieval enhanced recall of both previously and subsequently studied lists. Physiologically, the results showed an increase of alpha power (8-14 Hz) from List 1 to List 5 encoding when no retrieval activities were interpolated but no such increase when any of the 3 retrieval activities occurred. Brain-behavior correlations showed that alpha-power dynamics from List 1 to List 5 encoding predicted subsequent recall performance. The results suggest that, without intermittent retrieval, encoding becomes ineffective across lists. In contrast, with intermittent retrieval, there is a reset of the encoding process for each single list that makes encoding of later lists as effective as encoding of early lists.     

Lexical coherence in short-term memory: Strategic reconstruction or “semantic glue”?

This study explores the foundation of lexical/semantic phoneme binding effects in verbal short-term memory (STM). The immediate serial recall of pure lists of words and nonwords was compared with the recall of mixed lists that had either a predictable, alternating structure (e.g., wnwnwn) or an unpredictable structure (i.e., the serial positions of the words/nonwords could not be known in advance). The study provides evidence for two separate mechanisms by which long-term linguistic knowledge contributes to STM. First, there was evidence for automatic lexical/semantic binding effects that were independent of knowledge of lexical status. The nonwords in both types of mixed list damaged word recall and encouraged the phonological elements of words to migrate. In both alternating and unpredictable mixed lists, the phonemes of words were more likely than the phonemes of nonwords to be recalled together as a coherent item, suggesting that lexical/semantic knowledge encourages the phonological elements of words to emerge together in immediate serial recall, even when lexical status is unknown. Secondly, there was evidence for “strategic redintegration”, which was dependent on prior knowledge of the lexical status of the items in mixed lists. When participants recalled items that they knew to be words in advance, they were able to use this knowledge to constrain their responses so that they were more likely to be lexically appropriate. These findings motivate modifications to current theories of the interaction between linguistic knowledge and verbal short-term memory.     

Writing,Reading, and Listening Differentially Overload Working Memory Performance Across the Serial Position Curve

Previous research has assumed that writing is a cognitively complex task, but has not determined if writing overloads Working Memory more than reading and listening. To investigate this, participants completed three recall tasks. These were reading lists of words before recalling them, hearing lists of words before recalling them, and hearing lists of words and writing them as they heard them, then recalling them. The experiment involved serial recall of lists of 6 words. The hypothesis that fewer words would be recalled overall when writing was supported. Post-hoc analysis revealed the same pattern of results at individual serial positions (1 to 3). However, there was no difference between the three conditions at serial position 4, or between listening and writing at positions 5 and 6 which were both greater than recall in the reading condition. This suggests writing overloads working memory more than reading and listening, particularly in the early serial positions. The results show that writing interferes with working memory processes and so is not recommended when the goal is to immediately recall information.     

Rehearsal in immediate serial recall

We report for the first time overt rehearsal data in immediate serial recall (ISR) undertaken at three presentation rates (1, 2.5, and 5 sec/word). Two groups of participants saw lists of six words for ISR and were required either to engage in overt rehearsal or to remain silent after reading aloud the word list during its presentation. Typical ISR serial position effects were obtained for both groups, and recall increased with slower rates. When participants rehearsed, they tended to do so in a cumulative forward order up to Serial Position 4, after which the amount of rehearsal decreased substantially. There were similarities between rehearsal and recall data: Both broke down toward the end of longer sequences, and there were strong positive correlations between the maximum sequence of participants' rehearsals and their ISR performance. We interpret these data as suggesting that similar mechanisms underpin both rehearsal and recall in ISR.     

Immediate serial recall of mixed-modality lists

Seven experiments are reported in which subjects were tested for immediate serial recall of mixed-modality lists. On mixed auditory-visual lists, there was an advantage for auditory items at all serial positions. This was due to both a facilitation of auditory items and an inhibition of visual items on mixed lists, as compared with single-modality lists. When presented on a list containing items read silently, recall of items that were silently mouthed by the subject demonstrated patterns similar to those found with auditory items. When presented on a list containing items read aloud, recall of mouthed items showed patterns similar to those found with silently read items. The auditory advantage on mixed lists was found even when the list items were acoustically similar or identical and was not reduced by midlist auditory suffixes. The results suggest that modality differences in recall of mixed-modality lists are based on information different from that responsible for modality differences in recall of single-modality lists.     

Distinctiveness and Very Short-term Serial Position Effects

The serial position function reflects better memory for the first and last few items in a list than for the middle items. Four experiments examined the effects of temporal spacing on the serial position function for five-item lists that took between 0.5 seconds and 1.1 seconds to present. As with recall of far longer-lasting lists, recency and other robust serial position effects were observed with both free and serial recall. We demonstrate that temporal schedules of presentation control recall probability in predictable ways, and conclude that very fleeting lists obey similar principles as do longer-lasting lists. We compare both sets of findings with predictions from the dimensional distinctiveness framework.     

Enhancement of 4-year-old children's memory span for phonologically similar and dissimilar word lists

Previous research suggests that preschool children are deficient in rehearsal and that stimulus list repetitions can improve their recall, presumably by substituting for the products of rehearsal. However, the previous research included interitem or postlist retention intervals of several seconds or more. We examined the utility of list repetitions with reference to an ordinary span task in which spoken words were presented 1 s apart for immediate recall. Lists with phonologically similar versus dissimilar items were included, to determine if the overall pattern of recall could be made more similar to what is ordinarily obtained in older children. Cumulative repetition was found to cause a moderate increase in both memory span and the phonological similarity effect. Other types of list repetition provided more insight into types of stimulus redundancy that were helpful (e.g., repeated serial order information) or not helpful (e.g., forced articulatory coding) to children attempting to recall spoken lists. The underlying mnemonic processes are discussed.     

Opposing effects of phonological similarity on item and order memory of words and nonwords in the serial recall task

This study shows that the classical phonological similarity effect (PSE) in immediate serial recall is critically affected by the lexicality of list items, the type of phonological similarity involved, and the scoring procedure. PSE was present in the serial recall score when phonologically distinct words were compared to words that share the middle vowel and end consonant (rhyming lists). PSE was absent in the serial recall score when phonologically distinct words were compared to words that share the initial and final consonants (consonant frame lists). There was a reversal of PSE in serial recall of nonwords when comparing distinct lists to both types of similar lists. Recall accuracy on the other hand was higher for distinct lists regardless of lexicality. Item errors dominated in relation to order errors in the case of nonwords, whereas order errors dominated in relation to item errors in the case of words. Furthermore, order errors were more common for phonologically similar lists, whereas item errors were more common for phonologically distinct lists. This may be the result of intra-list and inter-list interference, respectively. The dominance of the former error type may cause a classical PSE, whereas the dominance of the latter error type may cause a reversal of PSE. Finally, an item identification task yielded no evidence of an association between intra-list interference and discriminability of items in a list.     

Sign-based short-term coding of American Sign Language signs and printed English words by congenitally deaf signers

A short-term serial recall task consisting of lists of five American Sign Language signs and lists of five printed English words was administered to eight congenitally deaf subjects. For both modes of presentation, the stimuli in a given list were (1) high in phonological relatedness, (2) high in cherological relatedness (i.e., they were similar in terms of the formational attributes of their sign-equivalents), or (3) low in both phonological and cherological similarity (control). For both modes of presentation, recall accuracy was significantly lower on cherologically related lists than on both phonologically related lists and control lists. Phonologically related lists did not differ significantly from control lists. These results suggest the possibility that ways of looking at human memory which rely on a preference for phonological coding in short-term memory processes may reflect the audiocentricity of the experimenter rather than the inherent nature of such processes.