Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

Abstract

Four effects-the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect-have played a prominent role in the development of influential theories of immediate memory. Indeed, accounting for these four findings was one of the motivations for creating the phonological loop component of working memory (Baddeley, 1992), and these effects are seen as key data that computational models of short-term memory must account for (Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008). Despite the numerous studies examining these phenomena, very few studies have examined them using backward recall. To that end, one purpose of the four experiments reported here was to assess whether the four benchmark effects of working memory are observable with backward recall. A second purpose was to test the predictions of two models of memory: Despite their many differences, both the primacy model (Page & Norris, 1998) and the feature model (Nairne, 1990) predict that all four effects should be observed with backward recall. Empirical ReviewWord length effect. The word length effect refers to the finding that lists of short (i.e., one-syllable) words are recalled better than otherwise comparable lists of longer (i.e., multisyllabic) words (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchan an, 1975; for a review, see . The standard paradigm is forward immediate serial recall, but the word length effect is also observable with reconstruction of order (Nairne, Neath, & Serra, 1997), serial recognition (Baddeley, Chincotta, Stafford, & Turk, 2002), free recall (Watkins, 1972), single-item probe recall (Avons, Wright, & Pammer, 1994), and complex span (Tehan, Hendry, & Kocinski, 2001) tests. However, only a small number of studies have examined whether the effect is observable with backward recall.Cowan et al. (1992, Experiment 3) had subjects recall lists of short and long words in both a forward and a backward order, and recall direction was not known until test. However, a straightforward interpretation of the results is difficult, since word length was manipulated within a list (i.e., the first half of the list was short words, the second half long words), and since the lists had five items, there were not equal numbers of short and long items per list. Moreover, the stimuli used have since been shown to be atypical (see, e.g., Neath, Bireta, & Surprenant, 2003). Cowan, Wood, and Borne (1994) Working memory was designed to explain four benchmark memory effects: the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect. However, almost all research thus far has used tests that emphasize forward recall. In four experiments, we examine whether each effect is observable when the items are recalled in reverse order. Subjects did not know which recall direction would be required until the time of test, ensuring that encoding processes would be identical for both recall directions. Contrary to predictions of both the primacy model and the feature model, the benchm...

The role of overt language production in the Hebb repetition effect

“…Thus, backward recall could lead to long-term learning during a Hebb repetition paradigm, because the strengthening of long-term connections during presentation would occur independently of recall order. However, our analysis of response times invalidates the use of such strategy, since we observed timing differences between forward and backward recalls in Experiments 1 and 2 (see also Anders & Lillyquist, 1971;Bireta et al, 2010). Besides, some studies have suggested that the Hebb repetition effect is not caused by strengthening of the context-item associations and that positional models are not suited to explain the long-term learning observed during a Hebb repetition paradigm (Cumming et al, 2003;Hitch, Fastame, & Flude, 2005;Page et al, 2013).…”

“…Therefore, backward recall would occur through a series of covert forward recalls (Page & Norris, 1998). In line with another study (Bireta et al, 2010), our analyses of response times have ruled out the possibility that participants did series of forward recalls before the output of every single item in the backward-recall condition, as was proposed by Thomas et al (2003). However, our data is consistent with Page and Norris's (1998) idea of covert forward recalls before the output of groups of items during backward recall.…”

“…In backward recall, output times decrease with each response, because the list to retrieve becomes one item shorter after every output. Although Bireta et al (2010) used a reconstruction task, they failed to replicate Thomas et al's (2003) results, therefore casting doubt on the hypothesis that backward recall implies a forward covert scan before the output of every single item. In the present experiments, we measured response times in order to assess whether participants were making a series of forward recalls during backward recall.…”

“…Some studies suggested a trade-off between item and order memory at the time of retrieval: The order dimension would receive more attention in backward than in forward recall, and therefore less attention would be given to the item dimension (Bireta et al, 2010; see also Surprenant et al, 2011). Other authors such as St Clair-Thompson and Allen (2013; see also Li & Lewandowsky, 1995) suggested that backward recall was accomplished through the use of a visuospatial strategy.…”

From Brown-Peterson to continual distractor via operation span: A SIMPLE account of complex span.

“…Ideally, the actual output times are used (e.g., Bireta et al, 2010), but if these are unknown, an estimated output time is used.…”