Effects of encoding strategy, presentation modality, and scoring method on STM performance with the Peterson and Peterson technique

Johansson, Bo S.; Lindberg, L; Svensson, Margareta L.

doi:10.3758/bf03198135

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anderson & Bower, 1972), it seems possible to give an allover account of the present findings. Such a separation means that the process of encoding is relevant for the integration of the memory traces for the input items, that different types of encoding result in different degrees of trace integration, and that degree of trace integration determine ease of differentiating the input items from the other items in memory (Johansson, Lindberg, & Svensson, 1974;Johansson, 1975).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study of the Brown-Peterson technique, Johansson, Lindberg, and Svensson (1974) found that recall performance was dependent upon the strategy used when encoding the trigrams. Two strategies were used, which were found to produce different levels of recall and rate of build-up of PI, and retention curves with different slopes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Johansson only the instructed orienting task, category sort should result in a stronger integration of the memory traces for the input words than the letter sort task. Johansson et al (1974) suggested that with a high degree of trace integration retention should be less time dependent and less susceptible to interference than with a low degree of trace integration. Therefore, it may be predicted that the category sort condition, in comparison to the letter sort condition, should result in higher recall, fewer intrusions, and less time dependent forgetting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recall as a function of orienting task and retrieval cue

Johansson

1977

Scandinavian J Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Absfracr.-In an incidental learning experiment, a 40 word list with 4 words representing each of 10 taxonomic categories and beginning with each of 10 first letters was presented to 120 subjects. Half the subjects sorted the words according to category, half according to initial letter. After an interval of either 1 or 6 min, retention was measured with cued or free recall tests. The subjects in the Category sort-Category cue condition obtained higher recall than the subjects in the Category sort-Letter cue condition, whereas level of recall did not differ between the Letter sort-Letter cue and Letter sort-Category cue conditions. These results together with other results from the experiment were considered as arguments against the Encoding Specificity Principle but in favor of a theory separating encoding from retrieval.In A. W. Melton & E. Martin (Eds.), Coding processes in human memory,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recall as a function of orienting task and retrieval cue

Johansson

1977

Scandinavian J Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies have found that auditory presentation of memory items results in greater recall, primarily at short retention intervals (Cooley & McNulty, 1967;Grant & Mc-Cormack, 1969). Others have reported that visual presentation results in greater recall at both short and long retention intervals (Johansson, Lindberg, & Svensson, 1974;Marcer, 1967;Scarborough, 1972). Thus, unlike the first line of research, these studies have produced no consistent results regarding the influence of modality of presentation on recall.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Effects of distractor-stimulus modality in the Brown–Peterson distractor task.

Proctor

Fagnani²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported using the Brown-Peterson distractor task. Consonant trigrams were employed as memory items, and counting backwards aloud was employed as the distractor task. For visually presented memory items, recall was much lower at all retention intervals when the three-digit number (distractor stimulus) for the counting task was also presented visually than when it was presented auditorally. No similar effect of distractor modality was obtained for auditorally presented memory items. The effect of distractor-stimulus modality on recall of visual-memory items was attributed to visual modality-specific interference that apparently occurs as a consequence of actively attending to a subsequent visual stimulus. The distractor-modality effect accounts for apparently conflicting outcomes obtained in previous studies of memory-item modality in the distractor paradigm. Brown (1958) and Peterson and Peterson (1959) introduced a technique for studying short-term memory that has become widely used. The task involves presentation of a small set of memory items, followed by a distractor task. Following a retention interval, which is usually between 0-and 25-sec duration, the subject is asked to recall the memory items.One variable that has received extensive examination in the Brown-Peterson paradigm is that of presentation modality (see Kroll, 1975;Penney, 1975). Studies have examined the influence of both memoryitem modality and distractor-task modality on recall. This investigation of modality effects has occurred in two essentially independent lines of research.

show abstract

“…It may thus be claimed that the Peterson & Peterson finding represents a special case of a modality by strategy space. In a second experiment by B. S. Johansson et al (1974), the Peterson & Peterson technique was employed for studying the build-up of proactive interference. No effects were detected in the visual-associative condition, again lending support to the notion of strategic effects in STM.…”

Section: Coding Processes In Stmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive psychology in Scandinavia: Attention, memory, learning and memory dysfunctions

Rönnberg

1986

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last 15 years of research on attention, memory, learning and memory dysfunction is reviewed in detail, while areas such as reading, problem‐solving and decision making are viewed from the perspective of memory and learning. Parts of the reference material are drawn from other areas than cognitive psychology: For example, educational psychology and the neurosciences. A total of 513 papers are reviewed of which 360 papers are of Scandinavian origin. On the basis of the reviewed material, three trends are projected: Cognitive task analysis, cognitive neuropsychology and, finally, an increase of qualitative data analyses.

show abstract

Effects of encoding strategy, presentation modality, and scoring method on STM performance with the Peterson and Peterson technique

Cited by 6 publications

References 21 publications

Recall as a function of orienting task and retrieval cue

Recall as a function of orienting task and retrieval cue

Effects of distractor-stimulus modality in the Brown–Peterson distractor task.

Cognitive psychology in Scandinavia: Attention, memory, learning and memory dysfunctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About