No abstract

Four effects-the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect-have played a prominent role in the development of influential theories of immediate memory. Indeed, accounting for these four findings was one of the motivations for creating the phonological loop component of working memory (Baddeley, 1992), and these effects are seen as key data that computational models of short-term memory must account for (Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008). Despite the numerous studies examining these phenomena, very few studies have examined them using backward recall. To that end, one purpose of the four experiments reported here was to assess whether the four benchmark effects of working memory are observable with backward recall. A second purpose was to test the predictions of two models of memory: Despite their many differences, both the primacy model (Page & Norris, 1998) and the feature model (Nairne, 1990) predict that all four effects should be observed with backward recall. Empirical ReviewWord length effect. The word length effect refers to the finding that lists of short (i.e., one-syllable) words are recalled better than otherwise comparable lists of longer (i.e., multisyllabic) words (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchan an, 1975; for a review, see . The standard paradigm is forward immediate serial recall, but the word length effect is also observable with reconstruction of order (Nairne, Neath, & Serra, 1997), serial recognition (Baddeley, Chincotta, Stafford, & Turk, 2002), free recall (Watkins, 1972), single-item probe recall (Avons, Wright, & Pammer, 1994), and complex span (Tehan, Hendry, & Kocinski, 2001) tests. However, only a small number of studies have examined whether the effect is observable with backward recall.Cowan et al. (1992, Experiment 3) had subjects recall lists of short and long words in both a forward and a backward order, and recall direction was not known until test. However, a straightforward interpretation of the results is difficult, since word length was manipulated within a list (i.e., the first half of the list was short words, the second half long words), and since the lists had five items, there were not equal numbers of short and long items per list. Moreover, the stimuli used have since been shown to be atypical (see, e.g., Neath, Bireta, & Surprenant, 2003). Cowan, Wood, and Borne (1994) Working memory was designed to explain four benchmark memory effects: the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect. However, almost all research thus far has used tests that emphasize forward recall. In four experiments, we examine whether each effect is observable when the items are recalled in reverse order. Subjects did not know which recall direction would be required until the time of test, ensuring that encoding processes would be identical for both recall directions. Contrary to predictions of both the primacy model and the feature model, the benchm...

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/4660/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014- Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. AbstractIn their recent paper, Acheson, MacDonald, and Postle (2011) made an important but controversial suggestion: they hypothesised that a) semantic information has an effect on order information in short-term memory (STM) and b) that order recall in STM is based on the level of activation of items within the relevant lexico-semantic long-term memory (LTM) network.However, verbal STM research typically has led to the conclusion that factors such as semantic category have a large effect on the number of correctly recalled items and little or no impact on order recall (Poirier & Saint-Aubin, 1995;Tse, 2009;Saint-Aubin, Ouellette, & Poirier, 2005).Moreover most formal models of short-term order memory currently suggest a separate mechanism for order coding -that is one that is separate from item representation and not associated with long-term memory lexico-semantic networks. Both of the studies reported here We are all familiar the experience of reading a paper in our field of expertise. Expressions are recognised, some arguments and ideas are anticipated, and grasping the experimental logic is facilitated by our understanding of the strategies in the area. Our previous knowledge of the constituents of the paper significantly supports our understanding of the work. In important ways, this example illustrates one of the most fundamental functions that memory performs:allowing the past to support and guide our present interactions with the world. This is the issue that motivated the current work; the studies reported here examine the interaction between semantic knowledge and the last few seconds of our most recent past -the content of verbal short-term memory (STM).Here, STM is viewed as a less general system than working memory. More specifically, STM is defined as the system that carries out the temporary maintenance of information necessary for many mental or cognitive operations and tasks (Baddeley, 1986). Generally, STM is recognised and playing an important role in everyday cognition (Majerus, 2009;Cowan, 1999). Moreover, the role of STM for order has also been highlighted in cognitive development and in particular in learning new words (Cowan, 1999;Majerus & Boukebza, 2013). One of the roles of STM that is regarded as central is the short-term maintenance of the order of events (Majerus, 2009). As a simple example, consider keying in a new security code, address, or phone number. These can of course be written down, but even in order to do so, they must be maintained in order long eno...

Prospective memory performance is sensitive to regular and even moderate ecstasy use. Importantly, ecstasy users experience generalized difficulties with prospective memory, suggesting that these deficits are likely to have important implications for day-to-day functioning.

No abstract