A Critical Analysis of Blaustein’s Polemic Against Husserl’s Method

Husserl Studies - The aim of the article is to define and investigate an interpretative framework for the philosophy of Leopold Blaustein, a student of Twardowski in Lwów (Lvov, Lviv) and...     

Verbatim and gist memory and individual differences in inhibition,sustained attention,and working memory capacity

In the present study, we explored whether individual differences in inhibition, sustained attention, and working memory capacity (WMC) are related to false memory task performance. We defined the processes in such a task according to the fuzzy trace theory and used multinomial modelling methodology to measure the contribution of these latent processes. We found higher verbatim memory in participants with a high WMC, as measured by the Rotation Span task, and in individuals who committed more errors in the Sustained Attention Response Task (SART). Participants with a high WMC and low-error level in SART showed higher gist memory for targets, and individuals high in WMC also rejected orthographically related distractors more effectively due to the recollection of distractors’ corresponding targets. We also observed that participants with better inhibition control were more conservative in guessing that an item was old.     

Auditory recency in immediate memory

Six experiments investigated the locus of the recency effect in immediate serial recall. Previous research has shown much larger recency for speech as compared to non-speech sounds. We compared two hypotheses: (1) speech sounds are processed differently from non-speech sounds (e.g. Liberman & Mattingly, 1985); and (2) speech sounds are more familiar and more discriminable than non-speech sounds (e.g. Nairne, 1988, 1990). In Experiments 1 and 2 we determined that merely varying the label given to the sets of stimuli (speech or non-speech) had no effect on recency or overall recall. We varied the familiarity of the stimuli by using highly trained musicians as subjects (Experiments 3 and 4) and by instructing subjects to attend to an unpracticed dimension of speech (Experiment 6). Discriminability was manipulated by varying the acoustic complexity of the stimuli (Experiments 3, 5, and 6) or the pitch distance between the stimuli (Experiment 4). Although manipulations of discriminability and familiarity affected overall level of recall greatly, in no case did discriminability or familiarity alone significantly enhance recency. What seems to make a difference in the occurrence of convincing recency is whether the items being remembered are undegraded speech sounds.