Attentional control of visual suffix effects

Manning, Susan Karp

doi:10.3758/bf03334730

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Nairne and Crowder (1982, Experiment 2) found that a silently mouthed suffix did not impair recall of a vocalized list as much as did a vocalized suffix. Manning (1987) found similar results with an auditorily presented list, provided that subjects did not have to attend to the suffix. In order to interfere maximally, the suffix must actually be heard.…”

Section: Modality Effects In Stm 413supporting

confidence: 63%

“…However, in these experiments, the direct comparison between the effects of lip-read and heard suffixes on recall of auditorily presented lists was not made.. Manning (1987) did compare several different types of suffixes on recall of auditory lists, and her results indicate that the effects of lip-read and auditory suffixes are not the same. When subjects could ignore the suffix, the lip-read suffix did not produce nearly as much interference as a heard suffix did; only when the subjects had to articulate the lip-read suffix before recalling the memory items were the effects of the lip-read suffix similar in magnitude to those of a heard suffix.…”

Section: Studies On Lip-read Stimulimentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Experiments demonstrating that a lip-read suffix impairs retention of an auditorily presented list were performed by Gardiner, Gathercole, and Gregg (1983), Greene andCrowder (1984, Experiment 3), andManning (1987). Greene and Crowder compared the effects of suffixes that were either lip-read only or both lip-read and heard on recall of lists that were either lip-read only or both lip-read and heard.…”

Section: Studies On Lip-read Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of auditory and visual presentation upon short-term retention of verbal stimuli are reviewed, and a model of the structure of short-term memory is presented. The main assumption of the model is that verbal information presented to the auditory and visual modalities is processed in separate streams that have different properties and capabilities. Auditory items are automatically encoded in both the A (acoustic) code, which, in the absence of subsequent input, can be maintained for some time without deliberate allocation of attention, and a P (phonological) code. Visual items are retained in both the P code and a visual code. Within the auditory stream, successive items are strongly associated; in contrast, in the visual modality, it is simultaneously presented items that are strongly associated. These assumptions about the structure of shortterm verbal memory are shown to account for many of the observed effects of presentation modality. Penney (1975) reviewed the literature on the effects of presentation modality on short-term retention of verbal material and concluded that there were separate stores for auditorily and visually presented information. To emphasize the idea that active processing underlies retention in short-term memory, and to discourage the conceptualization of short-term memory as a warehouse of decaying information, Penney (1980) introduced the term separate processing streams to replace the notion of separate memory stores. Since publication of the review paper, additional work on modality effects has supported the hypothesis of modality separation in the processing of verbal material in short-term memory (the separate-streams hypothesis), and new findings have elucidated the nature of the separate processing streams. The present paper is a review of the literature on modality effects and related phenomena, with the goal of presenting an integrated account in terms of the different properties and capabilities of the separate processing streams. These processing streams are seen to reflect the inherent structure of short-term verbal memory, and not to represent strategic processes.In 1975, the term modality effect referred to the finding that, in short-term memory tasks, auditory presentation almost always resulted in higher recall than did visual presentation. This modality effect was found for the recency part of the serial position curve in immediate free recall and in serial recall, and the auditory superiority was also found in the Peterson distractor task, provided that I would like to thank Donald Broadbent, Robert Crowder, Susan Manning, Bennet Murdock, James Nairne, Lars-Goran Nilsson, Charles Thompson, and Michael Watkins for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. Reprint requests may be addressed to the author, Psychology Department, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland AlB 3X9, Canada. the distraction did not require a long period of vocalization. Overt vocalization of a visually presented list by the subject produced much the sa...

show abstract

Section: Modality Effects In Stm 413supporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Studies On Lip-read Stimulimentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Studies On Lip-read Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A final item that is not to be recalled (a suffix item) but is acoustically similar to the list items impedes performance in the latter part of the list. Greenberg & Engle (1983) found that such a suffix impeded performance of the last one or two items whether or not the suffix had to be attended, although attention modulated the suffix effect earlier in the list (see also Manning, 1987;Routh & Davidson, 1978). For recall of visual stimuli, irrelevant-speech effects (Salamé & Baddeley, 1982) demonstrate the passive, automatic nature of sensory storage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A central capacity limit to the simultaneous storage of visual and auditory arrays in working memory.

Saults

Cowan

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

201

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If working memory is limited by central capacity (e.g., the focus of attention; N. Cowan, 2001), then storage limits for information in a single modality should apply also to the simultaneous storage of information from different modalities. The authors investigated this by combining a visual-array comparison task with a novel auditory-array comparison task in 5 experiments. Participants were to remember only the visual, only the auditory (unimodal memory conditions), or both arrays (bimodal memory conditions). Experiments 1 and 2 showed significant dual-task tradeoffs for visual but not for auditory capacity. In Experiments 3-5, the authors eliminated modality-specific memory by using postperceptual masks. Dual-task costs occurred for both modalities, and the number of auditory and visual items remembered together was no more than the higher of the unimodal capacities (visual: 3-4 items). The findings suggest a central capacity supplemented by modality- or code-specific storage and point to avenues for further research on the role of processing in central storage.

show abstract

“…One exception that is most difficult to interpret involves the large body of data showing the presence of recency and suffix effects for lipread (e.g., see Campbell & Dodd, 1980) and mouthed stimuli (e.g., see Campbell, Garwood, & Rosen, 1988;Greene & Crowder, 1984), which are not auditory. Additionally, lipread suffixes, which are visual, produce decrements in recency on auditory sequences (e.g., see Manning, 1987;Spoehr & Corin, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of recoding and presentation format on recency and suffix effects

1990

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary linguistic theory of Shand and Klima (1981) hypothesizes that stimuli that cannot be directly processed without recoding are not in the primary linguistic mode of the subject and thus should lead to lesser recency and associated suffix effects. In three experiments, different normal hearing subjects learned to pair American Sign Language (ASL) stimuli, visual "quasivocables" (QVs), word-like letter strings, and auditory QVs with common English words. In the first experiment, the subjects were given sequences of ASL or QV stimuli and required to recall the associated words in strict serial order. In two other experiments involving auditory and visual presentation, respectively, subjects who had never been given paired associate training were required to recall the English words that had previously been associated with the ASL and QV stimuli, in a standard suffix paradigm. The results showed recency and suffix effects to be present only with auditorily presented QVs and words. Contrary to the predictions of the primary linguistic hypothesis, greater recency and larger suffix effects were present with the auditory QVs than with the auditory words, although the QVs were not primary linguistic and the task involved forced recoding. Previous results showing recency with ASL stimuli in normal subjects were not replicated. It is concluded that recency and suffix effects are not related either to the primary linguistic mode of the subject or to stimulus recoding, as we and Shand and Klima have defined them.

show abstract

Attentional control of visual suffix effects

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory

Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory

A central capacity limit to the simultaneous storage of visual and auditory arrays in working memory.

The effects of recoding and presentation format on recency and suffix effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About