Two experiments tested the effects of suffixes on the recall of tactual and visual sequences of alphabetic characters presented at 19 letters per min. Scoring techniques allowed for the differentiation of losses of item and order information. In Experiment I performance decrements were found for both modalities, which were mainly caused by item loss at the more recent part of the serial position curve in the suffix conditions. In Experiment II, these effects were replicated and a non-alphabetic suffix led to greater decrements for both modalities than an alphabetical suffix. While a suffix effect based on the loss of item information is consistent with a sensory trace interpretation of the suffix effect, the presence of a visual suffix effect with slow stimulus presentation is not. Additionally, the greater effect of the non-alphanumeric suffix challenges attentional interpretations. Some possible explanations are proposed.
Similarity ratings of pairs of lipread consonants were obtained using a 5-point scale. Matrices were constructed showing mean similarity ratings and confusions among stimuli. Both the similarity and the confusion data provide normative data useful for researchers in many areas. Lipread data collected here are compared with similarity ratings of orthographically and auditorily presented consonants collected by Manning (1977). These comparisons provide information about how stimulus similarity both within and between presentation formats may affect information processing of the three types of stimuli. These data are of special interest to researchers studying the visual processing of speech and the effect of format of presentation on recall.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.