Book reviews

GEOGRAPHY, R. L. and GOMBRICH, E. H. (Eds). Illusion in Nature and Art. Gerald Duckworth and Co Ltd. 1973. Pp. 288. £7.50/£3.25.

HARTMANN, E. L. The Functions of Sleep. London: Yale University Press. 1974. Pp. 198. £ 3.50.

RADFORD, J. and BURNTON, A. Thinking: its Nture and Devolopment. London: Wiley. 1974. Pp. 440. £ 6.95. Soft cover £ 3.25.

MACE, C. A. Selected Paper. London: Methuen and Co Ltd. 1973. Pp. 420. £ 6.50.

WOLFF, J. G. Language, Brain and Hearing. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd. 1973 Pp. 237. £ 3050.

BATTRO, A. M. Piaget: Dictionary of Terms. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. 1973. Pp. 186. £ 5.75.

MUSSEN, P. H. and ROZENSWEIG, M. R. Annual Review of Psychology. Annual Reviews Inc: Palo Alto, Califonia. Pp. 551. 12.50.     

In defence of iconic memory

According to a model of visual information-processing which originated with Sperling (1960), and which currently enjoys wide acceptance, the contents of brief alphanumeric displays are initially held in a high-capacity fast-decay visual-information store (“iconic memory”). Some of these items are subsequently transferred to a more durable form of storage; the remaining non-transferred items are lost. Observers can select which items are to be transferred on the basis of physical characteristics of the items (such as colour, location, size, shape or brightness).

This model has recently been attacked by Holding (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973), sometimes by claiming that iconic memory does not exist, and at other times by claiming that transfer from iconic memory cannot be selectively controlled by the observer. We argue in this paper that Holding's criticisms are incorrect, and that, even if they were correct, the experiment we report would not be open to objections he has raised concerning previous studies of iconic memory. Despite this, evidence fully supporting the orthodox model was obtained, and we therefore conclude that this model remains tenable.     

Memory of a speaker's voice: Reaction time to same- or different-voiced letters

Subjects were presented with a sequence of two letters, each letter spoken in either a male or female voice. On each trial, the subject was required to indicate, as quickly as possible, whether the two letters had the same name. Reaction times (RTs) were faster for letters spoken in the same voice for both “same” and “different” responses, even when letters were separated by 8 s. These results are incompatible with the notion of physical and name codes in auditory memory since a “different” response should always be based on a comparison of letter names and should not be influenced by voice quality. It was also found that RTs were not influenced by the phonemic distinctive feature similarity of the letters.     

Short-term recognition memory for pitch: Effect of a priori probability on response times and error rates

A previous finding (Bindra, Williams, & Wise, 1965) that Ss respond “different” more quickly than “same” when comparing the pitch of two tones was confirmed. It was found that this effect could be enhanced by making same trials less frequent and that the effect could be reversed by making same trials more frequent. The experimental treatment also affected the error rates of the two responses. Error and latency results are discussed in terms of a model of R T based upon a sequential-sampling and decision procedure, and are shown to be compatible with such a model. A decision bias towards the response “different” must be taken into account when the model is applied. This bias appears to be influenced by the size of the interstimulus interval used.     

Unique types of achievement test exercises

In this article are presented a number of unusual achievement test exercises of both the essay and the objective types. These exercises may suggest to others engaged in the construction of achievement tests certain forms which they may find useful either as models or as points of departure in the invention of new forms. The article also calls attention to certain problems which must be solved if achievement testing is to have a sound, scientific basis.