Secondary memory and very rapid forgetting

Sebrechts, Marc M.; Marsh, Richard L.; Seamon, John G.

doi:10.3758/bf03202630

Cited by 13 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Muter (1980) claimed that a better estimate could be obtained by studying forgetting under conditions in which subjects did not expect a recall test with distracting activity during the retention interval. Under these conditions, perhaps less contaminated by secondary memory involvement, three letters could be recalled correctly only about 10% of the time after only 2 or 4 sec of distracting activity (Muter, 1980).1 Similar results were obtained by Sebrechts, Marsh, and Seamon (1989). In an attempt to investigate this finding ofvery rapid forgetting further, Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry (1993) found much less rapid forgetting.…”

supporting

confidence: 57%

Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry

Muter

1995

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this comment, it is argued that the experiments by Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry (1993) do not constitutefailures to replicate Muter's (1980) Peterson and Peterson (1959) found that three letters could be recalled correctly only about 10% of the time after 18 sec of distracting activity. These data, replicated many times (e.g., Murdock, 1961) have often been cited in estimating forgetting rates from short-term memory or primary memory. Muter (1980) claimed that a better estimate could be obtained by studying forgetting under conditions in which subjects did not expect a recall test with distracting activity during the retention interval. Under these conditions, perhaps less contaminated by secondary memory involvement, three letters could be recalled correctly only about 10% of the time after only 2 or 4 sec of distracting activity (Muter, 1980).1 Similar results were obtained by Sebrechts, Marsh, and Seamon (1989). In an attempt to investigate this finding ofvery rapid forgetting further, Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry (1993) found much less rapid forgetting. In the present comment, it is argued that Cunningham et al.'s procedures lack some of the necessary conditions for studying forgetting from primary memory, and that their data do not cast doubt on the finding of very rapid forgetting.Comparison ofMuter (1980) and Cunningham et at. (1993) How rapid is forgetting from primary memory? If a person looks up a phone number and is distracted, how rapidly is the information lost? It is often assumed that answers to these questions are provided by the classic I thank the reviewers and

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 57%

Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry

Muter

1995

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, work by Muter (1980) and Sebrechts, Marsh, and Seamon (1989) has demonstrated that the retention function in the distractor paradigm is dramatically influenced by whether the subject is led to expect a recall test after a retention interval, although only secondary memory, not primary memory, should be influenced by encoding strategies that are promoted by expectancy. When expectancy is low, the overall rate of forgetting suggested by these experiments is very rapid and Copyright 1993 Psychonomic Society, Inc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there really very rapid forgetting from primary memory? The role of expectancy and item importance in short-term recall

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, subjects recalled one of two letter segments following a digit-filled retention interval. In Experiment 1, recall expectancy was manipulated by using precues that correctly informed or misinformed subjects concerning which letter segment would be tested for recall. In Experiment 2, item importance was varied by precuing one segment as important but requiring that the uncued segment be recalled first. Recall performance was very low under conditions of low expectancy and low segment importance, but the slopes of the retention functions did not demonstrate more rapid forgetting than under standard conditions. The previous observations of very rapid forgetting from primary memory may be a function of an elevated initial recall level in the earlier studies. Our retention functions were compared with predictions of the Estes perturbation model. The findings suggested that when secondary memory processes were reduced, forgetting order information from primary memory occurred at the same rate as that estimated on the basis of previous studies using the standard distractor task. 671The distractor paradigm developed by Brown (1958) and Peterson and Peterson (1959) has been used to assess short-term memory (i.e., retention over brief time intervals). Findings from this paradigm have revealed a steep retention function, which has been interpreted as Experiment I was conducted at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where R.E.T. was on sabbatical leave 1984-1985.

show abstract

“…For example, this work is cited prominently in an encyclopedia article by Logan (1992) on attention and memory. This phenomenon was successfully replicated by Sebrechts, Marsh, and Seamon (1989). It was not Cunningham et al's (1993) intention to attempt to provide another replication of this phenomenon.…”

Section: Goals Ofthe Study By Cunningham Et Al (1993)mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…An "experimenter remained by the subject's side to ensure that the subjects read aloud all characters as they appeared on the display monitor" (Cunningham et aI., 1993, p. 674). Hence, there was no question that the to-beremembered letters were solidly registered in primary memory in the experiments by Cunningham et al Furthermore, the initial performance in the study by Cunningham et al was no lower than that in the study by Sebrechts et al (1989) with the acoustic orienting task (see p. 698). A crucial finding in Cunningham et aI.…”

Section: Registering Items In Primary Memorymentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Muter (1995) himself points out, "performance at the O-sec interval in Muter was similar to that in Murdock (1961)" (p. 385), in which recall was expected by subjects on every trial. Furthermore, Sebrechts et al (1989) have demonstrated that orienting tasks can influence recall in both the traditional distractor paradigm and the paradigm introduced by Muter (1980); they found "the presence of secondary memory influences at even the shortest retention interval" (Sebrechts et al, 1989, p. 693), which is why they speculated that "forgetting from primary memory may be even more rapid than has been proposed" (p. 693).…”

Section: Recall Expectancymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Muter

Healy

Cunningham

1995

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reply to the commentary in which Muter (1995) disputes thefindings and arguments ofCunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, andDimitry (1993) concerning the rate of forgetting from primary memory. Although Muter (1980) We found Muter's (1995) commentary to be stimulating and challenging. Although we disagree with much of what Muter says, the issues and criticisms that he raises with regard to our (Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, & Dimitry, 1993) goals, procedures, findings, and conclusions illustrate well the complexities involved in this area ofresearch. We believe that the concept of very rapid forgetting in short-term memory has been oversimplified in the past and that a close examination of our study visa-vis Muter's commentary will help clarify the conceptual and procedural complexities and confusions associated with the phenomenon.In his commentary, Muter (1995) argues that the experiments reported by Cunningham et al. (1993) do not constitute failures to replicate Muter's (1980) experiments demonstrating very rapid forgetting. Muter (1995) posits that Cunningham et al.'s procedures lack some of the necessary conditions for studying forgetting from primary memory and that their data do not cast doubt on the finding of very rapid forgetting. More specifically, Muter (1995) cites as two major problems the expectations of the subjects with regard to recall and the diffi-

show abstract

Secondary memory and very rapid forgetting

Cited by 13 publications

References 19 publications

Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry

Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich, and Dimitry

Is there really very rapid forgetting from primary memory? The role of expectancy and item importance in short-term recall

Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Muter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About