Some effects of minimizing articulation on short-term retention

Peterson, Lloyd R.; Johnson, Suzanne T.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(71)80033-6

Cited by 125 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this technique, the subject repeats a single word or phrase while trying to learn a list of words. In the most relevant of these studies, Murray (1968) and Peterson and Johnson (1971) presented visual and auditory series of rhyming or nonrhyming letters for serial recall, with or without articulatory suppression concurrent to the presentation. They found that there was a detrimental effect of phonetic similarity with either visual or auditory presentation of the letters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the methods of scoring and data analysis in the adult studies of Murray (1968) and Peterson and Johnson (1971) were not sufficient to determine whether articulatory suppression caused a reduction in the phonetic similarity effect for auditory stimuli. Furthermore, the articulatory suppression task in both studies involved speaking aloud, and the resulting auditory interference conceivably could have altered the magnitude of the phonetic similarity effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An adult model of preschool children’s speech memory

et al. 1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In previous work, it has been demonstrated that phonetic similarity among the items in a spoken list interferes with recall much more in school-aged children than in preschool children. The basis of this developmental change, however, is unclear. In the present study we examined the possibility that a developmental increase in the use of covert verbal rehearsal accounts for the change in the effects of phonetic similarity. Adults who recalled lists of spoken words during articulatory suppression tasks that blocked covert rehearsal were found to display patterns of recall that resembled those ordinarily found in 5-year-old children. The specific aspects of rehearsal responsible for these effects also were investigated.There are developmental changes during childhood in various processing mechanisms that assist in memory for speech. Our knowledge of these processes often is not extensive enough to determine which mechanisms account for the developmental changes observed in a particular memory task. An important example is the phonetic similarity effect first observed by Conrad (1971), who presented children with series of pictures with names that sounded similar (e.g., hat, bat, cat, etc.) or dissimilar (e.g., fish, clock, spoon, etc.). School-aged children remembered series of pictures with dissimilar names much better than series with similar names, whereas for preschool children the similarity of the names made much less difference. (Younger children's memory performance also was poorer overall, so the developmental change was primarily an increase in memory for dissimilar lists.) Conrad suggested that the observed age differences resulted from the development of some form of covert verbal labeling of the pictures, which presumably is of more mnemonic value when the items' names are dissimilar. Conrad's results were replicated by Hulme (1984) in an experiment in which the stimuli were spoken without accompanying pictures. These experiments, however, provide no direct support for the suspected role of covert speech.A study conducted by Hayes and Rosner (1975) with 4-and 5-year-old children suggested that the developmental change in the effects of phonetic similarity might result from an increase with age in the amount of cumulative rehearsal of list items (i.e., a particular type of covert speech). Hayes and Rosner used a procedure similar to that used by Conrad (1971), except that two verbal training conditions were included. In one of these, the child

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An adult model of preschool children’s speech memory

et al. 1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Articulatory suppression requires no equipment and demands little of the subject'S attention, as suggested by the finding that it does not impair performance on missing scan (Klapp, Marshburn, & Lester, 1983) or ordered recall of grouped auditory presentations (Klapp, Greim, & Marshburn, 1981). Articulatory suppression eliminates evidence of auditory recoding of visually presented stimuli (e.g., Baddeley, Lewis, & Vallar, 1984;Conrad, 1972;Healy, 1975a;Murray, 1967; L. R. Peterson & Johnson, 1971;Richardson, Greaves, & Smith, 1980;Salame & Baddeley, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Frick

1985

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments testing immediate ordered recall are presented; in these experiments, subjects engaged in repetitive speech ("articulatory suppression") during a visual presentation in order to prevent auditory recoding of the stimuli. In both experiments, a simultaneous presentation produced results that suggested the use of visual short-term memory, whereas a sequential presentation did not. In Experiment 1, visual confusion errors occurred more often than would be expected by chance for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. In Experiment 2, recall from visual short-term memory was expected to suffer more when subjects wrote a prefix than when they spoke a prefix; this effect occurred for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. These results suggest that existence of a visual shortterm store that retains a simultaneous presentation but not a sequential presentation.

show abstract

“…For example, Baddeley (1986) argued that verbal material is maintained in working memory via phonological rehearsal, a maintenance activity that is selectively How does processing 7 disrupted by verbal dual tasks (Peterson & Johnson, 1971;Saito, Logie, Morita, & Law, 2008). Similarly, Logie (1995) argued for a corresponding visuo-spatial 'rehearsal' system that is selectively blocked by visuo-spatial dual task activity (Smyth & Pelky, 1992).…”

Section: How Does Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…disrupted by verbal dual tasks (Peterson & Johnson, 1971;Saito, Logie, Morita, & Law, 2008). Similarly, Logie (1995) argued for a corresponding visuo-spatial 'rehearsal' system that is selectively blocked by visuo-spatial dual task activity (Smyth & Pelky, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Jarrold¹,

Tam²,

Baddeley³

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms AbstractThree studies are presented that examine why the processing demands within working memory tasks lead to forgetting of the memoranda. In each, separate groups of adult participants were asked to carry out either verbal or nonverbal operations on exactly the same processing materials, while maintaining verbal storage items. The imposition of verbal processing tended to produce greater forgetting, despite the fact that verbal processing operations took no longer to complete than nonverbal processing operations.However, nonverbal processing did cause forgetting, relative to baseline control conditions, and evidence from the timing of individuals' processing responses suggested that individuals in both processing groups slowed their responses in order to 'refresh' the memoranda. Taken together the data suggest that processing has a domain-general effect on working memory performance by impeding refreshment of memoranda, but can also cause effects, which appear domain-specific, either by blocking rehearsal or as a result of interference. In addition, the balance of these effects depends on the structure of the working memory task employed. How does processing 3How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects Complex span tasks are seen by many to be the 'gold standard' measure of working memory Jarrold & Towse, 2006). In complex span tasks, participants are asked to encode lists of memoranda (which are to be recalled later) while intermittently performing some kind of distracting processing activity (Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). In general, complex span performance is inferior to that of simple span, which measures immediate recall of memoranda after their presentation in the absence of distracting processing activity (e.g., Duff & Logie, 2001;Hutton & Towse, 2001;La Pointe & Engle, 1990).Consequently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the presence of the processing activity within a complex span task tends to cause forgetting of memoranda presented during the task.One reason for the substantial research interest in the complex span task is that performance on this measure is typically a strong correlate of measures of intelligence in adults (Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002) and of academic achievement in children (Bayliss et al., 2003; Bull, Epsy, & Wiebe, 2008;Swanson, 2008). Furthermore, many would argue that complex span performance is a significantly stronger correlate of these abilities than is simple span (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Engle, Tuholski, Luaghlin, & Conway, 1999; Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Süß, 2005), indicating that the forgetting caused by the imposit...

show abstract

Some effects of minimizing articulation on short-term retention

Cited by 125 publications

References 21 publications

An adult model of preschool children’s speech memory

An adult model of preschool children’s speech memory

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

"How does processing affect storage in working memory tasks? Evidence for both domain-general and domain-specific effects": Correction to Jarrold et al. (2011).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About