List length and single-trial short-term memory.

Abstract

Each of 803 6"s was required to learn a sequence of 3, 5, or 7 CVCs in one presentation. A group testing procedure was employed in which 6" recalled the first, middle, or last item in the list after either 0, IS, or 30 sec. Results revealed statistically significant effects associated with list length and serial position. No significant effects were associated with interval. The data were interpreted as suggesting that memory loss over interval does not appear unless S experiences a series of trials.

Single-trial recall and recognition memory under conditions where the number and availability of responses are equated.

“…The results of the present experiment are compatible with the data from the "one trialone test" experiments of Schumsky et al (1967Schumsky et al ( , 1969. No loss of retention associated with retention interval was found in this or the previous experiments using the singletrial technique.…”

“…Retention of an item on Trial n is not independent of previous tests and any multitrial procedure is best considered as a series of individual tests with retention changes occurring as a function of the ordinal position of those tests. Keppel (1965); Schumsky, Grasha, Eimer, and Trinder (1967); and Schumsky, Grasha, Trinder, and Richman (1969) argued that one test of a simple trace decay notion must involve a truly minimal memory experiment. The procedure employed to test the decay notion in the Schumsky et al (1969) experiment was a one-trial single test of STM.…”

“…Keppel (1965); Schumsky, Grasha, Eimer, and Trinder (1967); and Schumsky, Grasha, Trinder, and Richman (1969) argued that one test of a simple trace decay notion must involve a truly minimal memory experiment. The procedure employed to test the decay notion in the Schumsky et al (1969) experiment was a one-trial single test of STM. The 5s were presented a single list of three, five, or seven CVCs in one presentation.…”

Cueing and scoring procedures in STM.

“…A series of pilot experiments was done to replicate and extend the'results of Schumsky et al (1969); one experiment essentially reproduced their findings, but in the second experiment, a delay-dependent recency effect was seen on the first of a series of lists. In the pilot experiment which replicated Schumsky et al, their cueing method was used; 5s in the 0-sec.…”

“…The decline in recency associated with increases in delay appears to account for a large percentage of the total forgetting observed with delayed recall (Glanzer, Gianutsos, & Dubin, 1969). Schumsky, Grasha, Trinder, and Richman (1969) visually presented one list of CVCs to each 5 and probed for either the first, middle, or last item either immediately or after a variable delay. Neither the usually obtained decrement in recall as a function of delay nor the recency effect usually associated with immediate recall was present.…”