The course of proactive interference in immediate probed recall

Sanders, A.F.; Willemsen, E.M.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(78)90012-4

Cited by 17 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, previous list length does not affect PI, which confirms the results of Sanders and Willemsen (1978). It appears that a global task feature, such as massed versus spaced trials, causes a substantial change in relative performance between list parts which is not due to PI but to a shift in attentional bias favoring, respectively, the last or the first part of a list.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Hence, positional cuing theory does not predict more PI with a longer LL or PLL. Indeed, Sanders and Willemsen (1978) did not observe an effect of either PLL or LL in the case of only one prior interfering list. The present use of sixtrial strings could provide a more powerful test between the notions of acid bath and positional cuing theory, in particular if PI would accumulate across six trials.…”

Section: A J P Hendrikxmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…This paradigm avoids effects of output interference, and moreover, latency may provide a more sensitive measure of PI than does probability of correct recall. Sanders and Willemsen (1978) observed that in positionally probed recall, only the first items in the list were vulnerable to PI. In their study, two trials were presented in close succession and trial pairs were separated by a longer interval during which PI could dissipate.…”

Section: A J P Hendrikxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet PI is also observed in the response latency of positionally probed vocal recall of a single item (Sanders & Willemsen, 1978). In this paradigm, a list of items is followed by a positional probe, indicating the serial position (SP) of the requested item.…”

Section: A J P Hendrikxmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Short-term proactive interference revisited

Hendrikx

1986

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The basic experimental task consisted of memorization of a list of consonants followed by positionally probed recall of a single item. Immediately after presentation of a list, a positional probe was presented indicating the serial position (SP) of the requested item. Response latency was the main dependent measure. Previous studies with this paradigm have shown that if many trials are run in close succession, the latency for the most recent SP is smaller than that for the first SP, whereas the reverse is found when trials are given in relative isolation. The hypothesis is tested that this effect reflects a buildup of proactive interference (PI) over successive trials. Subjects received strings of six closely spaced trials, and the effect of successive trials on RT was measured. In line with the common findings on PI in short-term recall, the main effect of PI occurred at the second trial of a string, without any clear effect at later trials. Hence, the relatively strong recency effect as observed with many closely spaced trials seems not to be due to PI but to a more aspeciftc change in resource allocation to the various parts of the list.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: A J P Hendrikxmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: A J P Hendrikxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A J P Hendrikxmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Short-term proactive interference revisited

Hendrikx

1986

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more complex attempt to deal with the boundary effects is the positional cuing theory (Hendrikx, 1984;Sanders, 1975;Sanders & Willemsen, 1978). According to this theory, the first item of each group receives a primacy tag and the last item of each group receives a recency tag.…”

Section: Boundary Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%