Effects of memory load on reaction time.

Darley, Charles F.; Klatzky, Roberta L.; Atkinson, Richard C.

doi:10.1037/h0033487

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, the present results indicate that, at best, a mixture of a directed-entry and an exhaustive search strategy is used, even when there is valid information about the relevant memory subset in advance, and even when a consistent application of a directed-entry strategy is encouraged. This is in contrast to studies in which data in favor of a pure directed-entry strategy are reported (e.g., Darley et al, 1972;Kaminsky & DeRosa, 1972). lithe proba-…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

“…For partitioned memory sets, the elements of the target set are loaded with a higher probability than the elements of the additional set. If the buffer is loaded before the test stimulus is presented, then RT does not depend on the size of the additional set if the target set is of size S = 1, as reported by Darley et al, (1972). Whenever the target set is of size S > 1, RT depends on the size of the additional set, because its elements are also loaded in the matching buffer with a probability different from zero, as in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…However, there are differences with respect to the present study that may be responsible for the conflicting evidence. In the study reported by Darley et al (1972), the target set was always of size S = 1, whereas in the present study, half of the memory set elements always constituted the target set. This raises the possibility that memory search is completely selective only if the target set does not contain more than one element.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…There is evidence from scanning studies using categorized memory lists that is in accordance with these predictions (e.g., Darley, Klatzky, & Atkinson, 1972;Homa, 1973;Kaminsky & DeRosa, 1972;Lively & Sanford, 1972;. However, the predictions of the directed-entry model are not always confirmed (e.g., Clifton & Brewer, 1976;Crain & DeRosa, 1974;Simpson, 1972).…”

Section: Directed-entry Modelmentioning

confidence: 52%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Selective search in short-term memory under ideal conditions of test stimulus categorization

Muthig

Ulrich

1985

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has often been claimed that short-term memory search is not selective because it takes longer to categorize the test stimulus than to search throughout the whole memory set. Four experiments investigated whether evidence for selective search can be obtained when effectively no time is required to categorize the test stimulus. Even under this favorable condition, no evidence was found for selective search of only the relevant memory subset. Therefore, the time to categorize a test stimulus cannot be the only reason why short-term memory search is not selective.Search processes in short-term memory (STM) have been predominantly investigated within the itemrecognition paradigm (Sternberg, 1966(Sternberg, , 1969. In this paradigm, a short list of sequentially displayed items (the memory list) has to be retained on every trial. After a brief delay, a single item (the test stimulus) is presented and a speeded yes/no decision is required, whether the test stimulus is a member of the memory list (positive trial) or not (negative trial). Reaction time (RT) is measured from the onset of the test stimulus to the occurrence of the response. Approximately linear increases of mean RT with memory list size for positive and negative trials have given strong evidence that the search through the items in STM (the memory set) is serial and exhaustive, and not self-terminating as common sense may suggest.However, there is evidence that the search process changes if the memory lists contain items that belong to different categories: letters and digits, for instance (Jones & Anderson, 1982;Lively & Sanford, 1972;Naus, 1974; Naus, Glucksberg, & Ornstein, 1972;Simpson, 1972;Ulrich & Muthig, 1983). Two search models have become prominent in accounting for the altered search process. Both models assume that the memory set is partitioned according to the categories that make up the memory list (e.g., letter subset and digit subset). In addition, both models share the assumption that within each memory subset the search is serial and exhaustive. However, the two models differ with respect to how the subsets are entered in the search process. Directed-Entry ModelAccording to this model, there are two stages of the search process: (1) the categorical membership of the test stimulus is determined; (2) the corresponding memoryWe gratefully acknowledge the help of Markus Giray in computer programming and of Miles Hewstone in making this manuscript more readable. We also are indebted to Robert A. Bjork, Norman Slamecka, and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Klaus-Peter Muthig, Psychologisches Institut der Universitat Tiibingen, Friedrichstrasse 21, D-7400 Tiibingen, Federal Republic of Germany. 29 subset is searched serially and exhaustively. The categorical information of both the subset and the test stimulus is assumed to restrict the search to the relevant subset so that the speeded yes/no decision is made without searching the remaining irrelevan...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Directed-entry Modelmentioning

confidence: 52%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Selective search in short-term memory under ideal conditions of test stimulus categorization

Muthig

Ulrich

1985

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…considering that the color associations may not have been well learned. Darley', Klatzky, and Atkinson (1972) precued subjects as to exactly which item in the one-to five-item set would appear if the test item was positive. Their subjects took full advantage of the advance information, responding as fast on precued trials in which the memory set contained two, three, four, or five items as on regular trials in which the memory set contained only one item.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of an extraneous added memory set on item recognition: A test of parallel-dependent vs. serial-comparison models

Krueger

1975

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The linear increase in response time (RT) in item recognition as a function of memory set size may be attributed either to increased memory search, as in Sternberg's serial-comparison model, or to increased interference and competition for a limited processing capacity, as in a parallel-dependent model. An additional memory load was imposed on the normal item recognition task. If the normal task involved letters, the additional task involved digits, or vice versa. The added set was presented before and tested after the normal core set was presented and tested. Across the four trial blocks, the subjects did come to dissociate the two memory sets, but this could be due as much to directed rehearsal as to directed search when other results, including the subjects' postsession reports, are considered. Other findings, such as the higher error rate and shorter RT for positive than negative trials, seem to reflect differences in effective trace strength, and thus are consistent with the parallel-dependent model. Sternberg (1966Sternberg ( , 1969a found response time (RT) in an item recognition task to increase linearly with the size of the memory set, and at the same rate or slope for positive trials, where the test item belonged to the memory set, as for negative trials. He concluded that the memory set is scanned in a serial and exhaustive manner for the test item. Sternberg's results have been confirmed by some studies, whereas others have found negatively accelerated, more nearly logarithmic functions, or have found different slopes for positive and negative trials (see Nickerson's 1972 review). The set-size function nearly disappears when the sets greatly exceed the capacity of short-term memory: RT increased at the rate of 38 msec per item for Sternberg's (1966) small sets, but only at about 5 msec per item for Juola, Fischler, Wood, and Atkinson's (1971) sets of 10 to 26 items and Atkinson and Juola's (1973) sets of 16 to 54 items. Juola et a1. and Atkinson and Juola proposed that the subject directly accesses the test item in long-term memory, responding "yes" immediately if its subjective familiarity is quite high and "no" if quite low. If the familiarity is intermediate, the subject then searches through the memory set, either in serial or parallel fashion. The number of items searched ought to increase as set size increases, thus accounting for the small slope found.A uniprocess model, however, can account for the results, both for small and large sets. The model

show abstract

Immediate memory for words from main and subordinate clauses at different age levels

Townsend

Ottaviano

Bever

1979

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of memory load on reaction time.

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Selective search in short-term memory under ideal conditions of test stimulus categorization

Selective search in short-term memory under ideal conditions of test stimulus categorization

The effect of an extraneous added memory set on item recognition: A test of parallel-dependent vs. serial-comparison models

Immediate memory for words from main and subordinate clauses at different age levels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About