Presentation modes and immediate recall in children

Wong, Roderick; Blevings, George

doi:10.3758/bf03328449

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Experiment II, saying the names of pictures, numbering them, or putting them together in some kind of meaningful association was related to higher DR performance in that the older subjects and the better performers of Group 7 reported using such special methods for remembering. This finding, while not conclusive, is consistent with past research on mediation and learning in children, which has shown that mediators such as verbalizations, prepositions, or sentences aided children in learning tasks (Davidson, 1964;Hagen & Kingsley, 1968;Jensen & Rohwer, 1965;Kendler & Kendler, 1962;Milgram, 1967;Reese, 1962Reese, , 1965Wong & Blevings, 1966). Requiring subjects to verbalize the names of the pictures, presenting names with the pictures, or organizing the pictures in meaningful sequences all offer possibilities for studying the effects of mediation on DR.…”

Section: Mediationsupporting

confidence: 73%

Age differences in judgments of recency for short sequences of pictures.

Mathews¹,

Fozard²

1970

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments, 128 4-12 yr. olds were compared in their discrimination of recency (DR) ability in 7- and 12-item lists of pictures. The pictures discriminated were separated from each other in the list by 2, 4, or 7 items. Results of analyses of variance supported the hypotheses that DR would improve with shorter lists (p < .05), wider separations of items (p < .025), and older age (p < .025). The location of test items early or late in the list had little effect on DR. DR was not correlated with intelligence and socioeconomic measures. Evidence was presented that picture order and the method Ss used in reviewing the picture lists influenced DR. (22 ref.)

show abstract

Section: Mediationsupporting

confidence: 73%

Age differences in judgments of recency for short sequences of pictures.

Mathews¹,

Fozard²

1970

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some researchers have claimed that the modality effect is unaffected by whether auditory or read aloud manipulations are employed (e.g., Crowder, 1970;Henmon, 1912;Penney, 1975;Metcalfe & Sharpe, 1985;Wong & Blevings, 1966), Macken et al (2016) observed differences in serial reconstruction between auditory and read aloud lists. Specifically, Macken et al (2016) observed that the recall of the end of the list items was of similar magnitude in the auditory spoken and read aloud conditions, but the recall of the prerecency items was reduced in the read aloud condition relative to both the spoken and the visual silent.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That the modality effect is robust is not in question. It is consistently observed in both ISR (e.g., Campbell & Dodd, 1980 ; Conrad & Hull, 1968 ; Corballis, 1966 ; Cowan, Saults, & Brown, 2004 ; Cowan, Saults, Elliott, & Moreno, 2002 ; Crowder, 1970 ; Crowder & Morton, 1969 ; Greene & Crowder, 1984 ; Harvey & Beaman, 2007 ; Henmon, 1912 ; Laughery & Pinkus, 1966 ; Madigna, 1971 ; Margrain, 1967 ; Metcalfe & Sharpe, 1985 ; Murray & Roberts, 1968 ; Nairne & McNabb, 1985 ; Nairne & Walters, 1983 ; Routh, 1970 , 1971 ; Sherman & Turvey, 1969 ; Spoehr & Corin, 1978 ; Watkins & Watkins, 1973 , 1980 ; Watkins, Watkins, & Crowder, 1974 ) and IFR (e.g., Beaman & Morton, 2000 ; Craik, 1969 ; Engle, Clark, & Cathcart, 1980 ; Gardiner, Gathercole, & Gregg, 1983 ; Glenberg, 1984 ; Marks & Crowder, 1997 ; Murdock & Walker, 1969 ; Nilsson, Wright, & Murdock, 1979 ; Roberts, 1972 ; Shand & Klima, 1981 ; Watkins, 1972 ; Watkins et al, 1974 ; Wong & Blevings, 1966 ).…”

Section: The Modality Effect In Ifr and Isrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common modality effects in immediate free recall and immediate serial recall.

Grenfell-Essam

Ward

Tan

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments, participants were presented with lists of between 2 and 12 words for either immediate free recall (IFR) or immediate serial recall (ISR). Auditory recall advantages at the end of the list (modality effects) and visual recall advantages early in the list (inverse modality effects) were observed in both tasks and the extent and magnitude of these effects were dependent upon list length. Both tasks displayed modality effects with short lists that were large in magnitude but limited to the final serial position, consistent with those observed in the typically short lists used in ISR, and both tasks displayed modality effects with longer lists that were small in magnitude and more extended across multiple end-of-list positions, consistent with those observed in the typically longer lists used in IFR. Inverse modality effects were also observed in both tasks at early list positions on longer lengths. Presentation modality did not affect where recall was initiated, but modality effects were greatest on trials where participants initiated recall with the first item. We argue for a unified account of IFR and ISR. We also assume that the presentation modality affects the encoding of all list items, and that modality effects emerge due to the greater resistance of auditory items to output interference.

show abstract

“…it seems that mouthing gives consistently, but not necessarily significantly, better recall than does silent reading (Murray, 1965b(Murray, , 1966b. In both these studies, however, saying the material aloud gave significantly better recall than did silent reading, the reason for this probably being that concurrent auditory feedback is particularly efficacious in enhancing recall (Murray, 1965a(Murray, , 1965cWong & Blevings, 1966). These findings suggest that if motor cues be added to silent reading, some small assistance is afforded to memorization, but that added auditory cues render more.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

The role of speech responses in short-term memory.

1967

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

184

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments are reported in which Ss saw lists of letters for immediate recall, but had to say a neutral sound as they perceived each letter. In Experiment I this technique substantially reduced recall of letters, spoken as capitals, as compared with that for normally voiced lists, but no difference between "suppression" and voicing emerged if the letters were pronounced in altered fashion (e.g., BDF pronounced as "buh duh fuh. . ."). In Experiment II, having to say a sound which coincided with the dominant sound of the presented list led to slightly poorer recall than did the saying of non-coincident sounds at presentation. Experiment III showed that the main advantages for recall of articulation consisted in raising the recall particularly of lists of low acoustic similarity, reducing order errors, and raising the recall particularly of the early and middle items of lists (the latter only if articulation was normally intoned as opposed to monotonous). It is concluded that the advantage of articulation at presentation increases as the acoustic similarity of the items decreases. Some general implications concerning STM are drawn from this conclusion.

show abstract

Presentation modes and immediate recall in children

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

Age differences in judgments of recency for short sequences of pictures.

Age differences in judgments of recency for short sequences of pictures.

Common modality effects in immediate free recall and immediate serial recall.

The role of speech responses in short-term memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About