Selective interference with verbal short-term memory for serial order information: A new paradigm and tests of a timing-signal hypothesis

Many recent computational models of verbal short-term memory postulate a separation between processes supporting memory for the identity of items and processes supporting memory for their serial order. Furthermore, some of these models assume that memory for serial order is supported by a timing signal. We report an attempt to find evidence for such a timing signal by comparing an “item probe” task, requiring memory for items, with a “list probe” task, requiring memory for serial order. Four experiments investigated effects of irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, temporal grouping, and paced finger tapping on these two tasks. In Experiments 1 and 2, irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression had a greater detrimental effect on the list probe task than on the item probe task. Reaction time data indicated that the list probe task, but not the item probe task, induced serial rehearsal of items. Phonological similarity effects confirmed that both probe tasks induced phonological recoding of visual inputs. Experiment 3 showed that temporal grouping of items during list presentation improved performance on the list probe task more than on the item probe task. In Experiment 4, paced tapping had a greater detrimental effect on the list probe task than on the item probe task. However, there was no differential effect of whether tapping was to a simple or a complex rhythm. Overall, the data illustrate the utility of the item probe/list probe paradigm and provide support for models that assume memory for serial order and memory for items involve separate processes. Results are generally consistent with the timing-signal hypothesis but suggest further factors that need to be explored to distinguish it from other accounts.     

The ACRONYM (Alternatives for Circumvention of Restrictions on Naming BY Trialists of Their Manuscripts) Report

It is hoped that this commentary may draw attention to the issues raised by the enthusiastic naming of large clinical trials. Although the article is tongue in cheek, the underlying concern is that the names of studies may not, in fact, correspond to the actual results they yield.