Part—set cuing of order information: Implications for associative theories of serial order memory

Abstract

In three experiments, the effect of cuing, at the point of test, on memory for order and/or position was investigated, Experiment 1 used a partial reconstruction of order task to demonstrate a mnemonic benefit of part-set cuing at the time of test; this result is used to argue that people may commonly use interitem associative information, rather than just position information, to help them remember serial order. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and simultaneously demonstrated the mnemonic detriment that part-set cuing typically produces in free recall. Experiment 3 showed that cues presented at test will either help or hinder reconstruction of order, depending on whether those cues are consistent or inconsistent with the original presentation order. The results of all three experiments are discussed within the framework of position and associative theories of serial order memory.The ability to remember occurrence information, particularly the position of items in time, is central to successful episodic remembering. When an item is forgotten from a memory list, it is not the item per se that is forgotten but, rather, the fact that the item occurred at a particular point in time. People do not forget the word elephant; they simply forget that elephant occurred on the memory list. Successful remembering, as a result, hinges on the precise encoding and retention ofposition information-that is, when and where the item occurred in a temporal-spatial window defined by the experiment and its setting (see Crowder, 1979;Estes, 1997;Nairne, 1991).Traditionally, memory researchers have looked at position memory, or memory for order, by using serial recall tasks, often in an immediate memory setting. A short list of items is presented and followed moments later by a test requiring one to recall the items from left to right in their exact temporal order ofpresentation. However, immediate serial recall suffers from a number of problems, including the fact that it typically confounds item and order memory; that is, participants need to remember not only the temporal positions that items occupied, but also the items themselves. To help solve this problem, relevant list items can be re-presented at test in a new random order, with the requirement that participants simply place them back into their original order of presentation (e.g.,

Supporting older and younger adults’ memory for recent everyday events: A prospective sampling study using SenseCam

“…Significant inhibitory effects of part-set cueing have been found for shopping lists (Bovee, Fitz, Yehl, & Kelley, 2009) and expository text (Fritz & Morris, 2015) but for other stimuli, such as chess board layouts, uncategorised word lists, serial order, and complex scenes, partset cues have been found to have either no effect or a facilitative effect on subsequent recall (Cole, Reysen, & Kelley, 2013;Fritz & Morris, 2015;Serra & Nairne, 2000;Slamecka, 1969;Watkins, Schwartz, & Lane, 1984). If the inhibitory effect of part-set cueing is assumed to arise from either the disruption of a preferred retrieval strategy or response competition during retrieval (e.g.…”

The phonological neighbourhood effect on short-term memory for order

“…Juxtaposed against the vast body of evidence accumulated against chaining models is a smaller body of evidence in support of chaining. Serra and Nairne (2000) investigated the role of item-to-item associations in memory for serial order using a part-set cuing task. In this task participants performed serial reconstruction on eightitem lists.…”

The mnemonic effects of recall on immediate retention

“…Kahana and Caplan (2002) have shown that recall of item n in a serial list is better if it is cued with the immediately preceding item (n 1) than with the immediately following item (n 1). Serra and Nairne (2000) found that participants were better able to reconstruct the serial positions of some list items if other list items were placed in their appropriate presentation positions at test. Thus, rather than producing interference, the recall of item n 1 might enhance the recall of item n, and other nearby neighbors, and only impair the recovery of items occurring at more temporally distant positions in the list.…”