Revisiting backward recall and benchmark memory effects: a reply to Bireta et al. (2010)

Guérard, Katherine; Saint‐Aubin, Jean; Burns, Samantha C.; Chamberland, Cindy

doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0156-2

Cited by 26 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Gerton, Brown, Meyer-Lindenberg, Kohn, and Holt (2004) used PET to observe greater bilateral activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during backward, relative to forward, digit recall. It should be noted, however, that any explanation based on phonological representation would predict effects of related manipulations (e.g., phonological similarity) in both recall directions (Rosen & Engle, 1997), a prediction for which there has been some contrasting evidence (e.g., Bireta et al, 2010;Guerard, Saint-Aubin, Burns & Chamberland, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Are forward and backward recall the same? A dual-task study of digit recall

Clair-Thompson

Allen

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is some debate surrounding the cognitive resources underlying backward digit recall. Some researchers consider it to differ from forward digit recall due to the involvement of executive control, while others suggest that backward recall involves visuospatial resources. Five experiments therefore investigated the role of executive-attentional and visuospatial resources in both forward and backward digit recall. In the first, participants completed visuospatial 0-back and 2-back tasks during the encoding of information to be remembered. The concurrent tasks did not differentially disrupt performance on backward digit recall, relative to forward digit recall. Experiment 2 shifted concurrent load to the recall phase instead and, in this case, revealed a larger effect of both tasks on backward recall, relative to forwards recall, suggesting that backward recall may draw on additional resources during the recall phase and that these resources are visuospatial in nature. Experiments 3 and 4 then further investigated the role of visual processes in forward and backward recall using dynamic visual noise (DVN). In Experiment 3, DVN was presented during encoding of information to be remembered and had no effect upon performance. However, in Experiment 4, it was presented during the recall phase, and the results provided evidence of a role for visual imagery in backward digit recall. These results were replicated in Experiment 5, in which the same list length was used for forward and backward recall tasks. The findings are discussed in terms of both theoretical and practical implications.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Are forward and backward recall the same? A dual-task study of digit recall

Clair-Thompson

Allen

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the individual differences literature involving the distinction between working memory and STM, backward recall is seen as a measure of short-term storage (e.g., Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999). Likewise, while there are very well developed and comprehensive computational models of forward recall, there are no equivalent comprehensive models of backward recall (for a review see Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological effects in forward and backward serial recall: Qualitative and quantitative differences.

Ritchie¹,

Tolan²,

Tehan³

et al. 2015

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forward serial recall is affected by a diverse range of phonological factors that are readily replicated and relatively well understood. In contrast with backward recall, these phonological effects are not consistently replicable in that some studies show that the effects are present and some show the effects are absent or severely attenuated. Moreover at the theoretical level there is no consensus about how participants perform backward recall. The current research was aimed at understanding the differences between forward and backward recall by using meta-analytic techniques on 16 previously published experiments that examined the effects of benchmark phonological factors on both forward and backward recall. In each of the studies, recall was decomposed into 2 components, the first 2 items output and the remaining later responses. A consistent pattern emerged in the data. Each effect was present in both the early and late output positions in forward recall. The effects were present in the late output positions in backward recall, but the effects were weaker than in forward recall. The phonological variables had little impact on early output in backward recall (with the exceptions of articulatory suppression). The presence of qualitative differences between forward and backward recall and quantitative differences between studies have implications for the theoretical understanding of direction of recall in immediate memory tasks.

show abstract

“…SR-B: Cowan et al (1992);Guérard et al (2012) FR:Bhatarah et al (2009);Watkins (1972) PR:Avons et al (1994) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.

Oberauer¹,

Lewandowsky²,

Awh³

et al. 2018

Psychological Bulletin

318

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any mature field of research in psychology-such as short-term/working memory-is characterized by a wealth of empirical findings. It is currently unrealistic to expect a theory to explain them all; theorists must satisfice with explaining a subset of findings. The aim of the present article is to make the choice of that subset less arbitrary and idiosyncratic than is current practice. We propose criteria for identifying benchmark findings that every theory in a field should be able to explain: Benchmarks should be reproducible, generalize across materials and methodological variations, and be theoretically informative. We propose a set of benchmarks for theories and computational models of short-term and working memory. The benchmarks are described in as theory-neutral a way as possible, so that they can serve as empirical common ground for competing theoretical approaches. Benchmarks are rated on three levels according to their priority for explanation. Selection and ratings of the benchmarks is based on consensus among the authors, who jointly represent a broad range of theoretical perspectives on working memory, and they are supported by a survey among other experts on working memory. The article is accompanied by a web page providing an open forum for discussion and for submitting proposals for new benchmarks; and a repository for reference data sets for each benchmark. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Revisiting backward recall and benchmark memory effects: a reply to Bireta et al. (2010)

Cited by 26 publications

References 33 publications

Are forward and backward recall the same? A dual-task study of digit recall

Are forward and backward recall the same? A dual-task study of digit recall

Phonological effects in forward and backward serial recall: Qualitative and quantitative differences.

Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About