Effect of within-category spacing on free recall.

Borges, Marilyn A.; Mangler, George

doi:10.1037/h0032071

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, most of the prior work on blocked-random effects has not accounted for this influence (e.g. Cofer et al 1966; D’Agostino 1969; Borges and Mandler 1972). Through bootstrapping techniques, it is possible to estimate the amount of semantic organization due to temporal clustering (Morton et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a particularly critical issue when examining how semantic organization is influenced by manipulations of presentation order (e.g. Glanzer 1969; Borges and Mandler 1972; for a review, see Puff 1974). Morton et al (2013) demonstrated a permutation-based technique that can be used to estimate the baseline level of semantic organization expected in the presence of temporal organization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A predictive framework for evaluating models of semantic organization in free recall

Morton

Polyn

2016

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in free recall has demonstrated that semantic associations reliably influence the organization of search through episodic memory. However, the specific structure of these associations and the mechanisms by which they influence memory search remain unclear. We introduce a likelihood-based model-comparison technique, which embeds a model of semantic structure within the context maintenance and retrieval (CMR) model of human memory search. Within this framework, model variants are evaluated in terms of their ability to predict the specific sequence in which items are recalled. We compare three models of semantic structure, latent semantic analysis (LSA), global vectors (GloVe), and word association spaces (WAS), and find that models using WAS have the greatest predictive power. Furthermore, we find evidence that semantic and temporal organization is driven by distinct item and context cues, rather than a single context cue. This finding provides important constraint for theories of memory search.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A predictive framework for evaluating models of semantic organization in free recall

Morton

Polyn

2016

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants provided JOLs immediately following each item in the list and then completed a free recall test. Although blocking category exemplars at study usually leads to better recall than spacing them over the list (e.g., Dallett, 1964; but see Borges & Mandler, 1972) categorized items were nevertheless expected to be recalled better than unrelated items, and big categories were expected to be recalled better than small categories. The goal of Experiment 1 was to determine whether participants could accurately predict how category size would affect free recall performance.…”

Section: Monitoring Relatednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

When will bigger be (recalled) better? The influence of category size on JOLs depends on test format

Hourihan

Tullis

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is well known that organized lists of words (e.g., categories) are recalled better than unrelated lists, little research has examined whether participants can predict how categorical relatedness influences recall. In two experiments, participants studied lists of words that included items from big categories (12 items), small categories (4 items), and unrelated items, and provided immediate JOLs. In Experiment 1, free recall was highest for items from large categories and lowest for unrelated items. Importantly, participants were sensitive to the effects of category size on recall, with JOLs to items from big categories actually increasing over the study list. In Experiment 2, one group of participants was cued to recall all exemplars from the categories in a blocked manner, whereas the other group was cued in a random order. As expected, the random group did not show the recall benefit for big categories over small categories observed in free recall, while the blocked group did. Critically, the pattern of metacognitive judgments closely matched actual cued recall performance. Participants' JOLs were sensitive to the interaction between category size and output order, demonstrating a relatively sophisticated strategy that incorporates the interaction of multiple extrinsic cues in predicting recall.

show abstract

“…It has been observed, however, that category recall is superior following random presentation when compared to blocked presentation (Borges & Mandler, 1972;Hartley, 1974;Lewis, 1974). Since a demonstration of cueing requires a difference between cued and noncued subjects treated otherwise identically, it is possible that providing intralist cues to random presentation groups has been ineffective largely because these groups had fewer inaccessible categories than corresponding blocked presentation groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Facilitation of recall with intralist cues: Time-dependent characteristics of cued recall

Hartle

1976

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

List items were given as retrieval cues in a free-recall experiment which factorially combined the presence or absence of cues with the amount of time allowed for use of each cue (10 sec or 30 sec). A categorizable list of 75 randomly presented words 'was learned, and 48 h later a free-recall test trial was given, followed by a final memory search task. During the final task, cued subjects received words from categories that had not been recalled during the free-recall test, With both time intervals, cued subjects recalled more words than noncued subjects, indicating that random presentation of categorized words does not necessarily preclude the observation of a cueing effect with list items, as has been reported previously. The composition of recall, whether from previously recalled or nonrecalled categories, varied as a function of time for both groups. The results were interpreteJi in terms of retrieval strategies employed by cued and noncued subjects and the effect of time on these strategies.Acceptance of the theoretical distinction between storage and retrieval of information in memory focused a good deal of attention on the categorization of various memory phenomena as reflecting either storage processes or retrieval processes. In free recall, the phenomenon of output organization observed as either category clustering of taxonomically related words (Bousfield, 1953) or subjective organization of unrelated words (Tulving, 1962) was of particular interest. For a period of time, the argument about whether this phenomenon reflected storage processes (a trace-dependent hypothesis) or retrieval processes (a trace-independent hypothesis) centered upon the effectiveness of list items themselves as retrieval cues for additional list items. The logic was simply that, if list items are stored together (dependent traces), then providing one item (an intralist cue) should guarantee access to others (Slamecka, 1968).In a series of experiments wIJch provided the impetus for research on intralist retrieval cues, Slamecka (1968) found no evidence of increased recall when cues were given in a variety of conditions. With lists of unrelated words, related words, and categorized words, providing intralist cues did not increase recall when cued and noncued conditions were compared. These results were interpreted by Slamecka as indicating that a tracedependency theory of item storage was untenable. The original work on intralist cues (Slamecka, 1968) has been criticized on the basis of certain procedural difficulties (e.g., Wood, 1969), and a number of investigators have since demonstrated that intralist cues can be effective in both single-trial and multitrial free recall, but only under limited conditions. When related words or categorized words were blocked together during presentation, intralist cues were shown to facilitate recall; when the same list was presented in a random order, intralist cues failed to facilitate recall (Allen, 1969;Lewis, 1971;Luek, McLaughlin, & Cicala, 1971;Wood, 1969). Hudson and Austin (1970) re...

show abstract

Effect of within-category spacing on free recall.

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

A predictive framework for evaluating models of semantic organization in free recall

A predictive framework for evaluating models of semantic organization in free recall

When will bigger be (recalled) better? The influence of category size on JOLs depends on test format

Facilitation of recall with intralist cues: Time-dependent characteristics of cued recall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About