The item/order account of word frequency effects: Evidence from serial order tests

Neath, Ian; Quinlan, Philip T.

doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01144-7

Cited by 5 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, recognition often shows different results than serial recall. For example, age of acquisition affects recognition but not serial recall (MacMillan et al, 2021), and word frequency is known to have opposite effects in the two tasks (see Neath & Quinlan, 2021, for a recent review). Moreover, recognition memory is thought to be less dependent on variables that help to organize memory (Phelps et al, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Valence does not affect recognition.

MacMillan¹,

Field²,

Neath³

et al. 2022

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valence refers to the extent to which a stimulus is viewed as negative or positive. One recent model of valence, the NEVER model (Bowen et al., 2018), predicts that in general negative words will be better remembered than positive or neutral words. However, this prediction is difficult to validate for recognition tests because the literature reports inconsistent findings. Three experiments reexamined whether valence affects recognition of words by taking advantage of the recent increase in the number of high-quality norms and databases, which allow for the construct ion of three sets of stimuli that differ in valence, but are equated on numerous other dimensions known to affect memory. Experiment 1 found no difference in recognition performance between positive and negative words; Experiment 2 found no difference between positive and neutral words; and Experiment 3 found no difference between neutral and negative words. The results disconfirm a prediction of the NEVER model and suggest that previous demonstrations of an effect of valence are due to confounding other dimensions with valence.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Valence does not affect recognition.

MacMillan¹,

Field²,

Neath³

et al. 2022

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The sample size was determined by a power analysis using Superpower (Version 0.1.2, Lakens & Caldwell, 2021) with estimates based on Experiment 5 of Neath and Quinlan (2021) and previous experiments manipulating concreteness.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This pattern of results led Neath and Quinlan (2021) to suggest that the block order effect might be a metacognitive effect. It occurs for reconstruction of order tests, they suggested, because people think the test is easy, at least compared to a serial recall test.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In this article, we focus on an effect that might indicate similar expectancy effects occur in immediate memory. Neath and Quinlan (2021) reported a series of experiments designed to evaluate the predictions of the Item/Order hypothesis for the word frequency effect (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). This account posits that relative to low-frequency words, high-frequency words are processed more efficiently, which allows more time to process order information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The block order effect in reconstruction of order tasks and metacognitive processing.

Neath¹,

Quinlan²

2023

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In serial reconstruction of order tasks, high-frequency words are better remembered than otherwise equivalent low-frequency words. Neath and Quinlan (2021) found that although the usual high-frequency advantage was observed when subjects received a block of low-frequency lists first followed by a block of high-frequency lists, there was no frequency effect when subjects received a block of high-frequency lists followed by a block of low-frequency lists. In order to assess whether the block order effect simply reflects the inherent changeability of frequency effects, we manipulated concreteness, a much more stable effect. Experiment 1 found a block order effect with concreteness: The usual advantage for concrete over abstract words was observed only when the abstract block came first and the concrete block second; when the block order was reversed, no concreteness effect was seen. In Experiment 2, subjects did not know whether the test would be serial reconstruction of order or immediate serial recall until after list presentation. This eliminated the block order effect, just as when frequency was manipulated. Experiment 3 found a block order effect with a free reconstruction of order task and with both open and closed stimulus sets. Given that the pattern of results with concreteness is the same as with frequency, it suggests the block order effect is not unique to frequency and that a more general explanation, such as a metacognitive account, is needed.

show abstract

“…A second possible objection is that although linking long-term/lexical effects such as frequency and semantic relatedness to redintegration is prevalent in the serial recall literature, not all accounts of these effects invoke redintegration. For example, Popov and Reder (2020) presented a model of frequency effects in which the fundamental assumption is that high frequency words require less attention to be encoded than low frequency words; as Neath and Quinlan (2021) pointed out, this is similar to the assumption made by the item/order account that higher frequency words are processed more efficiently than low frequency words (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). This point is well taken.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Memory without retrieval: Testing the direct-access account of the missing item task.

Neath¹

2022

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the missing item task, two short lists are presented. The test list contains all but one of the items from the study list in a new random order and the task is to report which item from the study list is missing. Murdock and Smith (2005) found that the time to correctly respond with the missing item was independent of the position of the missing item and was also independent of the list length. They argued that these data are difficult to accommodate by models that include a search process but are consistent with models that posit "direct access" such as the power set version of Theory of Distributed Associative Memory (TODAM). If direct access is occurring, redintegration cannot be occurring. Two experiments test the direct access account by determining whether two effects commonly ascribed to redintegration occur in the missing item task. Experiment 1 found a semantic relatedness effect and Experiment 2 found a word frequency effect. The presence of these effects is consistent with a redintegration account. Implications for TODAM and for an explanation based on the Feature Model are discussed. Public Significance StatementRemembering is assumed to require retrieval but results from the missing item task have been interpreted as showing direct access to memory. However, performance on this task was found to vary depending on the frequency of the words and also to differ when the words were semantically related. Because both frequency and semantic relatedness effects are thought to require retrieval, the direct access account was not supported.

show abstract

The item/order account of word frequency effects: Evidence from serial order tests

Cited by 5 publications

References 49 publications

Valence does not affect recognition.

Valence does not affect recognition.

The block order effect in reconstruction of order tasks and metacognitive processing.

Memory without retrieval: Testing the direct-access account of the missing item task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About