Order error in immediate recall of sequences

Conrad, Rupert

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(65)80015-9

Cited by 203 publications

(190 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

180

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Repetition errors, which occur when an item is erroneously repeated during recall, are actually relatively infrequent in adult recall, particularly when items are not phonologically similar and when none of the original lists contains repetitions. Further, if an item is repeated, this tends to be at a long lag after the first recall of the item (Conrad, 1965). More direct evidence for such inhibitory processes comes from studies in which some of the presentation lists include repeated items.…”

Section: Effects Of Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's Serial Recall Errors: Implications for Theories of Short-Term Memory Development

McCormack

Brown

Vousden

et al. 2000

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined developmental changes in serial recall of lists of 6 letters, with errors classified as movements, omissions, intrusions, or repetitions. In Experiments 1 and 2, developmental differences between groups of children aged from 7 to 11 years and adults were found in the pattern of serial recall errors. The errors of older participants were more likely to be movements than were those of younger participants, who made more intrusions and omissions. The number of repetition errors did not change with age, and this finding is interpreted in terms of a developmentally invariant postoutput response inhibition process. This interpretation was supported by the findings of Experiment 3, which measured levels of response inhibition in 7-, 9-, and 11-year-olds by comparing recall of lists with and without repeated items. Response inhibition remained developmentally invariant, although older children showed greater response facilitation (improved correct recall of adjacent repeated items). Group differences in the patterns of other errors are accounted for in terms of developmental changes in levels of output forgetting and changes in the efficiency of temporal encoding processes.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's Serial Recall Errors: Implications for Theories of Short-Term Memory Development

McCormack

Brown

Vousden

et al. 2000

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brown, Preece, & Hulme, 2000;Burgess & Hitch, 1999;Conrad, 1965;Henson, 1998;Lee & Estes, 1977) of serial list learning to account for data on pairedassociates learning. As initially suggested by Conrad (1965) for serial lists, a list is acquired by learning associations between list items and an abstract representation of position:A list of pairs, A-B, C-D, E-F . .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking associative and serial list memory: Pairs versus triples.

Caplan

Glaholt

McIntosh

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paired associates and serial list memory are typically investigated separately. An "isolation principle" (J. B. Caplan, 2005) was proposed to explain behavior in both paradigms by using a single model, in which serial list and paired associates memory differ only in how isolated pairs of items are from interference from other studied items. In the present study, 2 experiments identify a critical dissociation between the 2 paradigms, challenging this unified account. Specifically, forward and backward probes were highly correlated for pairs and less so for short lists (triples). The authors asked whether the isolation principle could quantitatively accommodate this type of dissociation. A simulation confirmed that a single model incorporating the isolation principle can adequately explain this and other dissociations, supporting the common processes view.Paired associates and serial list memory paradigms have much in common. Memory for associations tests whether participants can remember that two items are linked (usually by having been presented at adjacent times during a study episode). Memory for serial lists also requires participants to recall the relationships among items, but serial lists include more than two items. One important difference is that with a pair of items, AB, order is irrelevant for many types of memory probes. For example, consider cued recall. When presented with one item of the pair, the participant need only recall the other item, regardless of whether it was the first or second item. In contrast, when presented with a single item from a list of three items, ABC, the participant may require some order information to recall the actual target item and rule out the third, incorrect item. Memory investigators have generally asked questions about associative memory and serial list memory in separate studies, underlining their differences. But models that account for a broad range of data have more explanatory value. If it could be shown that there are common mechanisms underlying behavior in both associative and serial list memory, then researchers could not only explain behavior in those two paradigms, but also potentially explain behavior in related and hybrid paradigms. By investigating associative and serial list memory together, we identify how performance on the two paradigms is similar and how it differs (Experiments 1 and 2), and test whether a single model can account for both the similarities and differences in behavior by using identical model processes (Simulation).The notion that associative and serial list memory are closely related dates back to Ebbinghaus's (1885Ebbinghaus's ( /1913) chaining model. In chaining, the participant learns a list by encoding item-to-item associations between neighboring items in the list (and sometimes between pairs of items separated by a lag): ͕A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-F, . . .͖,where letters denote items (e.g., nouns) and the dash symbol denotes a learned association. The participant could retrieve the list by starting at the first item, A, using ...

show abstract

“…Consequently, quite a number of current models specify a redintegration or deblurring process in which an item is derived from a fuzzy approximation of that item (Brown & Hulme, 1995;Henson, Norris, Page, & Baddeley, 1996;Lewandowsky & Murdock, 1989; Nairne, 1988Nairne, , 1990Neath & Nairne, 1995;Schweickert, 1993). The specifics of the reconstruction process vary from model to model as a function of representational, storage, and retrieval assumptions.The most obvious instance ofthe interaction ofcoding and reconstructive processes is in the phonemic similarity effect-that is, when items that have similar sound characteristics are mistaken for another, similar item in the list (Baddeley, 1966;Conrad, 1965). Those models that employ localist representations and localist storage-for example, Henson et al (1996)-explain phonemic confusions by arguing that the short-term episodic trace activates the wrong semantic output node.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most obvious instance ofthe interaction ofcoding and reconstructive processes is in the phonemic similarity effect-that is, when items that have similar sound characteristics are mistaken for another, similar item in the list (Baddeley, 1966;Conrad, 1965). Those models that employ localist representations and localist storage-for example, Henson et al (1996)-explain phonemic confusions by arguing that the short-term episodic trace activates the wrong semantic output node.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating proactive interference in immediate recall: Building a DOG from a DART, a mop, and a FIG

Tehan

Humphreys

1998

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonemic codes are accorded a privileged role in most current models of immediate serial recall, although their effects are apparent in short-term proactive interference (PI) effects as well. The present research looks at how assumptions concerning distributed representation and distributed storage involving both semantic and phonemic codes might be operationalized to produce PI in a short-term cued recall task. The four experiments reported here attempted to generate the phonemic characteristics of a nonrhyming, interfering foil from unrelated filler items in the same list. PI was observed when a rhyme of the foil was studied or when the three phonemes of the foil were distributed across three studied filler items. The results suggest that items in short-term memory are stored in terms of feature bundles and that all items are simultaneously available at retrieval.Most current models ofimmediate memory are in agreement on two things: first, that speech-based codes playa dominant role in short-term tasks, and second, that these phonemic codes quickly become degraded if rehearsal is prevented. The latter feature ensures that at recall, a target must be produced from an impoverished trace. Consequently, quite a number of current models specify a redintegration or deblurring process in which an item is derived from a fuzzy approximation of that item (Brown & Hulme, 1995;Henson, Norris, Page, & Baddeley, 1996;Lewandowsky & Murdock, 1989; Nairne, 1988Nairne, , 1990Neath & Nairne, 1995;Schweickert, 1993). The specifics of the reconstruction process vary from model to model as a function of representational, storage, and retrieval assumptions.The most obvious instance ofthe interaction ofcoding and reconstructive processes is in the phonemic similarity effect-that is, when items that have similar sound characteristics are mistaken for another, similar item in the list (Baddeley, 1966;Conrad, 1965). Those models that employ localist representations and localist storage-for example, Henson et al. (1996)-explain phonemic confusions by arguing that the short-term episodic trace activates the wrong semantic output node. When distributed representations but localist storage are used, a similar explanation is provided. Nairne (1990), for instance, matched a degraded short-term trace with items in a search set con-

show abstract

Order error in immediate recall of sequences

Cited by 203 publications

References 10 publications

Children's Serial Recall Errors: Implications for Theories of Short-Term Memory Development

Children's Serial Recall Errors: Implications for Theories of Short-Term Memory Development

Linking associative and serial list memory: Pairs versus triples.

Creating proactive interference in immediate recall: Building a DOG from a DART, a mop, and a FIG

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About