Subjective organization following constant input order in multitrial free recall

Superiority of complete presentation to single-item presentation in recall of sequentially organized material.

“…1 that while it makes little difference for the groups learning categorized word lists whether order of presentation varied from trial to trial, a constant order of presentation facilitates recall for the unrelated words. Jung and Skeebo (1967) and Wallace and Nappe (1970) have also found higher free recall with a constant order of presentation for unrelated word lists. It would appear that the potential advantage of a constant order over trials is of little consequence when 5s have the opportunity to organize recall on the basis of conceptual categories.…”

Organization in Free Recall Learning: Output Contiguity and Interresponse Times as a Function of Presentation Structure.

“…There may be a blocking effect for unrt-^ated words, since truly unrelatable words may be impossible to attain, but the blczking effect for related words would be greater. Similarly, Wallace and Nappe (1970) found that constant presentation order resulted in significantly better recall than varied order, and that there was a strong correspondence between presentation order and recall order for constant conditions. Sohn (1967) employed simultaneous tachistoscopic presentation of a list cf words in a circular array and found that free recall learning was more rapid when items maintained a constant -patial position across trials than when spatial location varied.…”

Analysis of Multitrial Free Recall

“…It has been amply demonstrated that free recall of constant input order lists is superior to that of variable input order lists (3,4,12). The apparent reason for this is that 5 s have less difficulty in organizing their recall under constant order conditions.…”