Serial Position and Distance Effects in Visual Working Memory

Dolenc, Barbara; Bon, Jurij; Repovš, Grega

doi:10.21909/sp.2013.01.622

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to word lists (Experiment 1), only recency effects were observed for short stories (for similar results with visual stimuli, see Dolenc, Bon, & Repovš, 2013;Hay, Smyth, Hitch, & Horton, 2007). This result is reconcilable with recent findings that suggest that primacy effects in memory are mostly due to rehearsal (e.g., Tan & Ward, 2000).…”

Section: Memorysupporting

confidence: 74%

Retrospective Evaluations of Sequences

Aldrovandi

Poirier

Kusev

et al. 2015

Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Retrospective evaluation (RE) of event sequences are known to be biased in various ways. Permanent repository linkThe present paper presents a series of studies that examined the suggestion that the moments that are the most accessible in memory at the point of RE contribute to these biases. As predicted by this memory-based analysis, Experiment 1 showed that pleasantness ratings of word lists were biased by the presentation position of a negative item and by how easy the negative information was to retrieve. Experiment 2 ruled out the hypothesis that these findings were due to the dual nature of the task called upon. Experiment 3 further manipulated the memorability of the negative items-and corresponding changes in RE were as predicted. Finally, Experiment 4 extended the findings to more complex stimuli involving event narratives. Overall, the results suggest that assessments were adjusted based on the retrieval of the most readily available information.

show abstract

Section: Memorysupporting

confidence: 74%

Retrospective Evaluations of Sequences

Aldrovandi

Poirier

Kusev

et al. 2015

Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fact that we observed a recency bias in our paradigm is interesting. Different studies have reported either recency (Cheadle et al, 2014; Dolenc et al, 2013; Gorgoraptis et al, 2011) or primacy effects (Rangelov & Mattingley, 2020), and some studies have observed both (Hu et al, 2014; Kool et al, 2014). Still other studies have reported no significant biases in temporal integration (Kool et al, 2014; Waskom & Kiani, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biased weighting of temporally discrete visual stimuli in a continuous report decision-making task: A combined behavioral and electrophysiological study.

McIntyre¹,

Rangelov²,

Mattingley³

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating evidence from multiple sources to guide decisions is something humans do on a daily basis. Existing research suggests that not all sources of information are weighted equally in decision-making tasks, and that observers are subject to biases in the face of internal and external noise. Here we describe two experiments that measured observers' ability to integrate successive visual signals. Participants viewed pairs of gratings presented sequentially and reproduced their average orientation. Experiment 1 revealed a recency bias in evidence integration, such that observers' average judgments were closer to the orientation of the second grating than the first. Mixture distribution modeling revealed that this was caused by a recency bias in averaging, as well as a tendency to disregard the first stimulus altogether in some trials. In Experiment 2 we replicated these findings, and quantified orientation-specific patterns of neural activity recorded during the task using population-tuning curve modeling of electroencephalography data. This analysis yielded robust orientation tuning to both the presented gratings and observers' decisions, and suggested that observers were storing both grating stimuli for subsequent averaging rather than computing a running average. The neural representation of the second grating was not reliably stronger than that of the first, suggesting that the recency bias is not due to a difference in the strength of encoding of the second stimulus, and instead may arise at a later decision stage where information is retrieved or integrated.

show abstract