Sequential versus simultaneous presentation of memoranda in verbal working memory: (How) does it matter?

Abstract

To-be-memorized information in verbal working memory (WM) can be presented sequentially, like in oral language, and simultaneously, like in written language. Few studies have addressed the importance and implications for verbal WM processing of these two presentation modes. While sequential presentation may favor discrete, temporal encoding processes, simultaneous presentation may favor spatial encoding processes. We compared immediate serial recall tasks for sequential versus simultaneous word list presentation with a specific focus on serial position curves of recall performance, transposition gradients, and the nature of serial order errors. First, we observed higher recall performance in the simultaneous compared to the sequential conditions, with a particularly large effect at end-of-list items.Moreover, results showed more transposition errors between non-adjacent items for the sequential condition, as well as more omission errors especially for start-of-list items. This observation can be explained in terms of differences in refreshing opportunities for start-of-list items during encoding between conditions. This study shows that the presentation mode of sequential material can have a significant impact on verbal WM performance, with an advantage for simultaneous encoding of sequence information.

Effect of visual presentation format and recall direction on letter span and error patterns in Deaf signing and hearing adults

“…presentation, but hearing nonsigners did not show this decrease in errors when moving from one presentation to the other. As predicted by prior studies of simultaneous presentation (Ordonez Magro et al, 2022), the simultaneous presentation format yielded lower omission errors than did sequential presentation, but only for the Deaf signers. In other words, Deaf signers were uniquely able to capitalize on the simultaneous presentation to reduce omission errors when compared with the sequential presentation.…”

“…Third, we predict this main effect will be qualified by a Group × Recall Direction interaction, wherein the Deaf group would exhibit a smaller forward-backward recall span difference than the hearing group (Bavelier et al, 2008, Experiment 3). Fourth, we predict a main effect of presentation format, wherein both groups will experience greater spans with simultaneous presentation than with sequential presentation (Ordonez Magro et al, 2022). Moreover, we hoped to extend the work of Hirshorn et al (2012) who found that Deaf signers could take advantage of visuospatial sequential location information to augment memory for verbal labels.…”

“…Three contributions of the present study are (a) the comparison of well-matched adult samples of nonimplanted Deaf signers and hearing nonsigners on multiple span tasks that varied in amount of visual support for ordering information (cf. Hirshorn et al, 2012;Ordonez Magro et al, 2022), (b) the yoking of forward and backward span tasks that allowed collection of sufficient errors for analysis, and (c) the application of the M 3 model (Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019) to examine span performance by item, both for correct responses and for errors. The hypotheses about span performance received mixed support: Deaf signers showed shorter spans than hearing nonsigners, participants had shorter spans with backward compared with forward recall, and participants had shorter spans with sequential compared with simultaneous presentation.…”

“…1). Whereas the simultaneous presentation condition is relatively novel to the linguistic span in Deaf literature, in its few applications (e.g., AuBuchon et al, 2015;Ordonez Magro et al, 2022) it has been found to bias hearing and Deaf, cochlear-implanted participants toward visual processing and yield reductions in order and omission errors.…”

Rime Priming Effects in Spoken Word Recognition

“…It should also be noted that one recent study (Harrison et al, 2020) of written language production (written and typed word production) also argues in favor of some flexibility in the representation of segment order. Hence, the flexible order-encoding of linguistic units (e.g., phonemes and letters for spoken and written word comprehension and production) would appear to be modality-independent and could thus constitute a general mechanism in language processing, which could also be applicable to a wide range of cognitive processes requiring the processing of order information (see Logan, 2021; Ordonez Magro et al, 2022).…”