This article reports a series of studies investigating the dimension along which words are encoded, using the "release from proactive inhibition" in short-term memory technique. The results of the experiments indicate that different dimensions vary in their effectiveness for proactive inhibition release. In general, semantic dimensions (taxonomic categories or semantic differential) are highly effective, whereas physical characteristics such as word length or figure-ground colors of the slide presentation are relatively ineffective in releasing proactive inhibition. The results of this technique of measuring encoding are related to other types of experiments on verbal material as well as to the topic of subception and imageless thought.

No abstract

This paper presents the results of aseries of experiments using the release from proactive inhibition technique for identifying the salient encoding attributes of words. The technique uses the Brown-Peterson paradigrn, but, after three trials on words of one dass, a fourth trial is given with words of another dass. The power of the dass encoding is inferred from the extent of gain (release from PI) found on the shift trial. The studies reported show a high degree of effectiveness for semantic variables; practically no effectiveness for grammatical variables; a moderate amount for physical variables (i.e., figure-ground shift); and varying amounts for other shifts such as word frequency, irnagery, language of the presentation to bilingual Ss. Some evidence is also given for the occurrence of simultaneous multiple encoding.My talk tonight will deal with the riehness and the intrieacy with which we encode words-the symbols that make up what we call language, and I will attempt to show that we are extraordinarily efficient, fertile, and rapid processors of an almost unbelievable amount of information. I think that such cognitive processing is highly automatie and compulsive, but, because oflack of

The research attacks two problems: the locus of interference effects and the nature of the retrieval process in secondary memory. It compares reaction time (RT) performance on the same materials for James's primary memory (PM) and secondary memory (SM) conditions in the Sternberg paradigm. In PM, where the materials were "never cut off in consciousness," the scanning process is accomplished with information already present; in the SM condition, the to-be-compared materials "of which mean time we have not been thinking" must be retrieved from inactive memory. Performance in the first case may be described as RT = a + (bm), and in the second by RT = [a + (bm)] + R, where R identifies a retrieval demand. Identical materials were used in a PM and SM Sternberg situation, the SM process being produced by introducing a distractor task between the termination of the memory set and the probe, mimicking a Brown-Peterson recall task. As in a release from the proactive interference (PI) paradigm, three consecutive trials from one taxonomic category were given and a shift was made to another category for 24 consecutive categories. The first trial on a category was defined as low in interference and the third was defined as high. The negative probe always came from the current category, and the frequency of the positive and negative probes was equal. Memory set sizes were 2 and 4. All resulting curves were parallel, differing only in intercept, with a slope of 38 msec per item. Interference effects occurred only in SM but not in PM, thus ruling out a perceptual interpretation of PI. Data show that retrieval times (difference between SM and PM) were the same for both two-and four-item memory sets. This finding demonstrates that the memory set is retrieved qua set and not item by item, in both the high and low interference conditions, agreeing with the generalized response competition and response-set interpretation of interference. Interference increased RT in SM by 19 msec per prior memory set. Negative probes gave higher RTs than positive probes, markedly so in SM, suggesting differential retrieval cue value of the two probes in SM.Overall, the results strongly support a response-set, list-differentiation, and an interference at retrieval interpretation of PI, in contrast to an encoding (perceptual) one, and stress the view that the initial retrieval act is retrieval of the address of the set and not of individual items.

No abstract