Seriation: Development of serial order in free recall.

Mandler, George; Dean, Peter J.

doi:10.1037/h0027767

Cited by 86 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the data are consistent with other reports that indicate constant input order facilitates free recall and organization (Jung & Skeebo, 1967;Lachman & Laughery, 1968;Mandler & Dean, 1969). In the present experiments, there was substantial agreement between input order and output order for the C groups.…”

Section: And Test (T) Trials As Foliows: S T S T S T T S T S T S T Tsupporting

confidence: 93%

Subjective organization following constant input order in multitrial free recall

Wallace

Nappe

1970

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: And Test (T) Trials As Foliows: S T S T S T T S T S T S T Tsupporting

confidence: 93%

Subjective organization following constant input order in multitrial free recall

Wallace

Nappe

1970

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the generation effect literature, for example, Burns (1996, Experiment 1) obtained the predicted association between order memory and free recall (i.e., a read advantage on both measures) with 40-item lists. More generally, Mandler and Dean (1969) obtained results suggesting that seriation is the preferred method for organizing lists up to 50 items in length. Order encoding may, of course, play less of a role in free recall for very long lists than for short lists.…”

Section: The Order-encoding Accountmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…This assumption is based on numerous findings showing that recall order often corresponds to the original order of presentation (e.g., Kintsch, 1970;Mandler, 1969). Use of a seriation strategy is particularly common when lists of unrelated items are given (Postman, 1972) and has been proposed to be the preferred method for organizing lists up to 50 items in length (Mandler & Dean, 1969). For present purposes, absolute order information, relative order information, or both could contribute to recall performance by providing an organizational structure and effective memory cues during retrieval.…”

Section: Participants Tend To Encode Information About Serial Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of word frequency on individual-item and serial order retention: Tests of the order-encoding view

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of studies in which the effect of natural language word frequency on free recall has been examined reveals an interesting paradox. When one compares free recall performance for pure lists of high-frequency (HF) words (e.g., letter, money, and people) with that for pure lists of low-frequency (LF) words (e.g., comet, diaper, and syringe), there is typically an advantage for HF items (Deese, 1960;DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996;Duncan, 1974;Gregg, 1976;Gregg, Montgomery, & Castaño, 1980;J. F. Hall, 1954;May & Tryk, 1970;Postman, 1970;Sumby, 1963). When lists comprising both HF and LF words are given, however, the HF advantage is eliminated, and a free recall advantage for LF items is often observed (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996;Duncan, 1974;Gregg, 1976;Gregg et al., 1980;May & Tryk, 1970; for an exception, see Balota & Neely, 1980). This reversal as a function of list composition appears to be a robust phenomenon and, as such, represents an important theoretical challenge for explanations of the effect of word frequency on free recall.In developing theoretical accounts of word frequency effects, it is noteworthy that the pattern described above fits within a larger pattern of results in which the effect of a stimulus variable on free recall is reversed or eliminated as a function of list composition. List composition effects include better recall of generated words than of read words in mixed, but not pure, lists (e.g., Mulligan, 2002;Serra & Nairne, 1993;Slamecka & Katsaiti, 1987), better recall of perceptually degraded words than of intact words in mixed, but not unmixed, lists (Mulligan, 1999), better recall of bizarre sentences than of common sentences in mixed, but not pure, lists (e.g., McDaniel & Einstein, 1986;McDaniel, Einstein, DeLosh, May, & Brady, 1995;McDaniel, DeLosh, & Merritt, 2000), better recall of humorous sentences than of common sentences in mixed, but not unmixed, lists (Schmidt, 1994), and better recall of orthographically distinct words than of orthographically common words in mixed, but not pure, lists (Hunt & Elliot, 1980 The order-encoding view of the word frequency effect proposes that low-frequency (LF) items attract more attention to the encoding of individual-item information than do high-frequency (HF) items, but at the expense of order encoding (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). When combined with the assumption that free recall of unrelated words is organized according to their original order of presentation, this view explains the finding that HF words are better recalled than LF words in pure lists but that, in mixed lists, recall is better for LF words. The present study confirmed that in mixed lists, order memory becomes equivalent for HF and LF words and that the predicted pattern of order memory and recall holds for incidental order-encoding conditions, for longer lists than those used in previous experiments, and for lists with minimal interitem associativity. Moreover, recall from HF lists declined, but recall from LF lists improved, in related-word lists, relative to unrelated-word ...

show abstract

“…Although the latter example is also treated as two different phases, the Vincent curves do not demonstrate that the first phase is a response sequence of three items with forward output order while the second is a backward output order sequence also of three items. Mandler and Dean's (1969) contribution to the description of output order concerns the development of serial order over successive trials and has many similarities to the organizational measures suggested by Bousfield and Bousfield (1966) and Tulving (1962).…”

Section: Lag Distributionmentioning

confidence: 91%

The effects of visual presentation method on single-trial free recall

1975

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments four different conditions of visual presentation were studied with the purpose of furthering our understanding of the role of temporal and spatial factors underlying modality effects in single-trial free recall. Enriching spatial factors in the visual presentation did not produce a higher performance in the recency part of the serial-position curve, and it was therefore concluded that the modality effect could not be due to any visual handicap. A lag distribution measure was suggested and applied to the data to characterize output. order (the order of recall) in single-trial free recall. The two experiments carried out used a within-subjects and a between-subjects design, respectively, and illustrate the importance of the methodological difference between these two designs.This paper investigates the role of temporal and spatial factors in the modality effect of single-trial free recall. The modality effect (e.g., Craik, 1969;Murdock & Walker, 1969) refers to the fact that auditory presentation results in a serial position curve which differs from the visual serial position curve in only one way; namely, a greater recency effect. The last (up to eight) words in a list will be better recalled if the presentation is auditory than if it is visual. Earlier words in the list are not differentially affected by the modality manipulation.One possible reason for the modality effect is that the auditory modality is specialized for sequential or temporal associations while the visual modality is specialized for simultaneous or spatial associations. Since short-term memory experiments generally test sequential associations, the auditory system is favored. One attempt to test this view did not support it, but the test may not have been critical (Murdock, 1972). Here the test employed only visual presentation to assess the importance of spatial cues more directly.The logic is as follows: Perhaps with visual presentation there is a handicap because the cues normally present, when the information-processing system is working with visual information, are absent. The normal mode of presentation of a visual stimulus is such that the complete stimulus array is in view and the eyes can range over it at leisure. While it may be only for a brief instant (as in reading or watching a motion Requests for reprints should be sent either to Lars-Goran Nilsson, Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala. Svartbacksgatan 10, S-75320 Uppsala, Sweden or to Bennet B. Murd?ck, Jr., Department of Psychology, University of Toronto. Ontano, Canada M5S lAl. picture), still the usual auditory pattern (say speech or music) is constantly changing and is never stationary. A typical visual presentation of words in a STM experiment using either a memory drum, a slide projector, or a CCTV display seems, therefore, to give little opportunity for spatial cues to work. That is, the words to be learned are sequential not simultaneous; at least in free recall, the offset of Word i-I always precedes the onset of Word i. There are at least...

show abstract

Seriation: Development of serial order in free recall.

Cited by 86 publications

References 11 publications

Subjective organization following constant input order in multitrial free recall

Subjective organization following constant input order in multitrial free recall

Effects of word frequency on individual-item and serial order retention: Tests of the order-encoding view

The effects of visual presentation method on single-trial free recall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About