Short-term recall as a function of covert rehearsal and of intervening task

Kroll, Neal E. A.; Kellicutt, M. H.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80077-x

Cited by 45 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect of complexity, however, suggests that the type of interpolating activity as well as the length of that activity can influence primary task performance. This has already been demonstrated for ordinary declarative memory elements by way of distractor task paradigms (e.g., Kroll & Kellicutt, 1972;Nakajima & Sato, 1989), as well as with task interruption specifically (Fischer & Glanzer, 1986). If the Anderson and Douglass (2001) and Altmann and Trafton (2002) models are to maintain that memory for goals is equivalent to memory for other declarative memory elements, then further elaboration of the models may be necessary to account for the observed effect of intervening task type.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach.

Hodgetts¹,

Jones²

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

140

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unexpected interruptions introduced during the execution phase of simple Tower of London problems incurred a time cost when the interrupted goal was retrieved, and this cost was exacerbated the longer the goal was suspended. Furthermore, time taken to retrieve goals was greater following a more complex interruption, indicating that processing limitations may be as important as time-based limitations in determining the ease of goal retrieval. Such findings cannot simply be attributed to task-switching costs and are evaluated in relation to current models of goal memory (E. M. Altmann & G.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach.

Hodgetts¹,

Jones²

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

140

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scarborough (1972) and Parkinson (1972) have suggested that visual superiority is a function of a visual storage system separate from an auditory storage system. Kroll and Kellicutt (1972) also found higher recall with visual presentation, but they attributed the result to the greater ease of forming intraletter associations with simultaneous visual presentation. In the present experiment, the finding that the number of other interference errors was minimal in the associative-visual condition gives some support to Kroll and Kellicutt's hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of encoding strategy, presentation modality, and scoring method on STM performance with the Peterson and Peterson technique

1974

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Adapted from Table 2 (Experiment 2) of Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrick, and Dimitry (1993): Proportion correct as a function of retention interval and condition, precue only, second segment only. strated many times that forgetting in short-term memory isa function of the nature ofthe distracting activity (e.g., Crowder, 1967;Kroll & Kellicutt, 1972;Nakajima & Sato, 1989;Posner & Rossman, 1965). Repeating aloud single digits presented visually at the rate of one or two per second, as in Cunningham et al (1993), produces less forgetting than does performing an arithmetic task, probably because shadowing digits is not sufficiently distracting to prevent rehearsal.…”

Section: Distracting Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Short-term recall as a function of covert rehearsal and of intervening task

Cited by 45 publications

References 23 publications

Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach.

Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach.

Effects of encoding strategy, presentation modality, and scoring method on STM performance with the Peterson and Peterson technique

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About