A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall.

Polyn, Sean M.; Norman, Kenneth A.; Kahana, Michael J.

doi:10.1037/a0014420

Cited by 693 publications

(1,252 citation statements)

References 140 publications

(267 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,124

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our interpretation of our data may go some way towards overcoming the difficulties that unitary accounts of IFR (e.g., Brown et al, 2007; Howard & Kahana, 2002;Polyn, et al, 2009;Sederberg, et al, 2008;Tan & Ward, 2000) have in explaining the IFR of short lists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Retrieval is often assumed to be both self-propagating and self-limiting (e.g., Roediger, 1973Roediger, , 1974, such that the recall of one list item can facilitate the recall of the next (e.g., Howard & Kahana, 1999; Kahana, 1996; Nairne, Ceo & Reysen, 2007; see also Lohnas & Kahana, 2014), but can also cause output interference (e.g., Beaman, 2002; Bunting, Cowan & Saults, 2006, Cowan, Saults, Elliott & Moreno, 2002 Nairne et al, 2007;Oberauer, 2003;Tan & Ward, 2007). It may be that the "ISR-like" recall of short lists is an effective strategy to recall many of the words from short lists, but that when only one or two responses are required, participants favor the greater certainty of accessing only the most recent items.Our interpretation of our data may go some way towards overcoming the difficulties that unitary accounts of IFR (e.g., Brown et al, 2007; Howard & Kahana, 2002;Polyn, et al, 2009;Sederberg, et al, 2008;Tan & Ward, 2000) have in explaining the IFR of short lists.Unitary accounts of IFR tend to predict extended recency effects, and so to date they have been found wanting in explaining participants' tendencies to initiate the recall of short lists with the first list item and to continue to recall in an "ISR-like" manner. However, our data suggest that, even in the IFR of very short lists, participants prefer to initiate recall with one of the last list items if they only have to recall one or two list items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Similarly, accounts that assume that items are associated with a drifting or changing temporal context (e.g., Howard & Kahana, 2002;Polyn, Norman & Kahana, 2009;Sederberg, Howard & Kahana, 2008;Tan & Ward, 2000) propose that more recent items should be generally more readily accessible than earlier list items, because they share contexts that are more closely related to the test context. The finding that it is the first item (and not the last item) that is most accessible when recalling short lists creates a distinct deviation from the predictions of these unitary accounts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Beginning at the beginning: Recall order and the number of words to be recalled.

Tan

Ward

Paulauskaite

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the draft version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. 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. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk Permanent repository link: City Research OnlineBeginning at the beginning:Recall order and the number of words to be recalled When participants are asked to recall a short list of words in any order that they like, they tend to initiate recall with the first list item and proceed in forwards order, even when this is not a task requirement. The current research examined whether this tendency might be influenced by varying the number of items that are to be recalled. In three experiments, participants were presented with short lists of between 4 and 6 words and instructed to recall 1, 2, 3 or all of the items from the lists. Data were collected using immediate free recall (IFR, Experiment 1), immediate serial recall (ISR, Experiment 2) and a variant of ISR that we call ISR-free (Experiment 3), in which participants had to recall words in their correct serial positions but were free to output the words in any order. For all three tasks, the tendency to begin recall with the first list item occurred only when participants were required to recall as many items from the list as they could. When participants were asked to recall only one or two items, they tended to initiate recall with end-of-list items. It is argued that these findings show for the first time a manipulation that eliminates the initial tendency to recall in forward order, provide some support for recency-based accounts of IFR and help explain differences between single-response and multiple-response immediate memory tasks.(232 words)In recent years, there has been a growing belief that much could be gained by the theoretical integration of two widely used and highly influential immediate memory tasks, immediate serial recall (ISR) and immediate free recall (IFR) (e.g., Anderson, Bothell, Lebiere, & Matessa, 1998;Bhatarah, Ward & Tan, 2006 Brown, Chater & Neath, 2008; Brown, Neath & Chater, 2007;Farrell, 2012;Grenfell-Essam & Ward, 2012; Grossberg & Pearson, 2008; Hurlstone, Hitch & Baddeley, 2014; Kahana, 2012; Klein, Addis & Kahana, 2005;Ward, Tan & Grenfell-Essam, 2010). In these tasks, participants are presented with lists of words and at the end of each list, they are either free to recall as many of the list items as possible in any order that they like (IFR) or they are required to recall as many items as possible in exactly the same serial order as that in which they were presented (ISR).One reason to believe that such integration is possible is the observation that participants tend to output their recalls in forwards serial order, even in IFR tasks (e.g., Beaman & Mor...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beginning at the beginning: Recall order and the number of words to be recalled.

Tan

Ward

Paulauskaite

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These theories assume that the most recent items are more temporally distinct (Brown et al, 2007;Glenberg & Swanson, 1986), or are associated with temporal contexts that are more similar to the end of list (Howard & Kahana, 2002;Polyn, Norman & Kahana, 2009;Tan & Ward, 2000;Ward, 2002;Ward & Tan, 2004) than earlier list items.…”

Section: The Importance Of the Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is often assumed that recall of one or more list items can have both facilitatory and interfering effects on the retrieval of other list items (e.g., Nairne, Ceo, & Reysen, 2007). The successful retrieval of some list items may aid the retrieval of other semantically-related or temporally-neighboring items, leading to semantic clustering and temporal contiguity effects (e.g., Polyn, Norman & Kahana, 2009), but the retrieval of one item may also decrease the accessibility of others through output interference (e.g., Beaman, 2002;Cowan, Saults, Elliott & Moreno, 2002;Oberauer, 2003;Tan & Ward, 2007). Using a cued recall task, Nairne et al…”

Section: On the Tendency To Initiate Ifr Of A Short List Of Words Witmentioning

confidence: 99%

First things first: Similar list length and output order effects for verbal and nonverbal stimuli.

Cortis¹,

Dent²,

Kennett³

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When participants are presented with a short list of unrelated words and they are instructed that they may recall in any order, they nevertheless show a very strong tendency to recall in forward serial order. Thus, if asked to recall in any order: "hat, mouse, tea, stairs", participants often respond "hat, mouse, tea, stairs" even though there was no forward order requirement of the task. In four experiments, we examined whether this tendency is language-specific, reflecting mechanisms involved with speech perception, speech production, and / or verbal short-term memory.Specifically, we examined whether we would observe similar findings when participants were asked to recall, in any order, lists of between 1 and 15 non-verbal stimuli, such as visuo-spatial locations (Experiment 1, Experiment 3, Experiment 4), or touched facial locations (Experiment 2).Contrary to a language-specific explanation, we found corresponding tendencies (albeit somewhat reduced) in the immediate free recall of these non-verbal stimuli. We conclude that the tendency to initiate recall of a short sequence of items with the first item is a general property of memory, which may be augmented by verbal coding. wordsKeywords: free recall; visuo-spatial memory; tactile memory; verbal short-term memory; serial order 3 Recently, Ward, Tan, and Grenfell-Essam (2010) reported the first systematic investigation into an experimental finding that was first reported by Corballis (1967) and then again by Neath and Crowder (1996). When participants are asked to recall a short list of words in any order, such as:"hat, mouse, tea, stairs", they often respond in forward serial order (that is, they recall "hat, mouse, tea, stairs"), even though there was no forward order requirement of the task. Ward et al. argued that this finding was important for two reasons. First, the finding encouraged greater theoretical integration between the otherwise divergent immediate free recall (IFR) and immediate serial recall (ISR) literatures. Second, the finding is potentially difficult to explain by many theories of IFR that emphasize the importance of explaining recency effects (that is, the high accessibility of items presented toward the end of a list). Third, the finding adds to the growing body of evidence that suggests that forward-ordered recall may be a defining principle of episodic memory (e.g., Hurlstone, Baddeley, & Hitch, 2014).One specific aim of the current work is to address the question of whether this forwardordered tendency observed in the IFR of verbal stimuli reflects the operation of language-specific mechanisms (such as a speech input/output buffer or a verbal short-term memory system) or whether the tendency is a more general property of memory that can also be observed across different (non-verbal) materials. A second more general aim of the current work is to examine the functional similarities and differences between IFR of stimuli from verbal and non-verbal domains.In the introduction that follows, we outline more fully the phenomenon ...

show abstract

Cognitive Control

Cohen¹

2017

The Wiley Handbook of Cognitive Control

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall.

Cited by 693 publications

References 140 publications

Beginning at the beginning: Recall order and the number of words to be recalled.

Beginning at the beginning: Recall order and the number of words to be recalled.

First things first: Similar list length and output order effects for verbal and nonverbal stimuli.

Cognitive Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About