Temporal dynamics of free recall: The role of rehearsal efficiency in word frequency and bilingual language proficiency effects.

Abstract

Under a recall model in which presentations and rehearsals are treated as equivalent encoding events, we investigated whether rehearsal efficiency differences explain the effects of word frequency and bilingual proficiency on the temporal dynamics of rehearsal and free recall. Experiments 1 and 3 were conducted with monolingual English speakers, and Experiments 2 and 4 were conducted with Spanish-English bilinguals with matched age, education, and socioeconomic status. In Experiments 1 and 2, lower word frequency, lower proficiency, and bilingualism were associated with less accurate free recall of items from early serial positions, beginning recall with items from later serial positions, and making fewer transitions to items from later or adjacent serial positions. These effects were replicated and rehearsal-based explanations were validated in Experiments 3 and 4 using a rehearse-aloud protocol. With lower frequency words or lower language proficiency, rehearsal was less efficient with fewer rehearsals between item presentations. As a result, items from early serial positions had fewer rehearsals that stopped earlier in the study sequence, less spacing between repeated rehearsals, and fewer transitions to items from later or adjacent serial positions. Rehearsal-contingent analyses revealed that these rehearsal patterns were associated with less accurate recall, beginning recall with items from later serial positions, and consistent transition patterns from rehearsal to recall. These patterns support a model in which presentations and rehearsals are treated as equivalent encoding events and the effects of word frequency and language proficiency on recall accuracy are mediated by less efficient rehearsal.

The effects of bilingual language proficiency on recall accuracy and semantic clustering in free recall output: evidence for shared semantic associations across languages

“…Detecting free recall performance differences across languages may require having participants memorize a larger number of lists. In previous studies with the same participant population, we found no reliable difference between L1 and L2 free recall accuracy when there was only one list per language (Francis & Baca, 2014), but there was a clear advantage for L1 over L2 recall when participants memorized sixteen lists in each language (Francis et al, 2018).…”

“…In one study, bilingual younger and older adults performed worse than monolingual adults (matched on age and non-verbal intelligence scores) in free recall of English word lists in which all words came from the same semantic category (Fernandes, Craik, Bialystok, & Kreuger, 2007). In the other, highly proficient bilingual adults performed worse in L2 but not in L1 relative to monolinguals who were matched on age, non-verbal cognitive ability, and socio-economic status in free recall of word lists with no categorical structure (Francis, Liaño, & Taylor, 2018).…”

“…One exception (Nott & Lambert, 1968) included only 9 French-dominant and 9 English-dominant participants, which is a small sample from which to draw generalizations. The other (Francis et al, 2018) used lists with no categorical structure, so clustering could not be measured. Thus, previous research on how recall performance and semantic clustering compare for L1 and L2 or for monolinguals and bilinguals has not produced definitive answers.…”

Judgments of learning in bilinguals: Does studying in a L2 hinder learning monitoring?

“…Additionally, Mizrahi et al [57] predicted that bilinguals would be disadvantaged in free recall, but advantaged in recognition in the nondominant language. In this vein, previous studies confirmed that bilinguals recalled fewer items, exhibited worse memory for item order, and weaker primacy effects in the nondominant than the dominant language [58][59][60]. In addition, two more studies reported better recognition memory for words in bilinguals' nondominant compared to their dominant language [61,62].…”