Category clustering for immediate and delayed recall as a function of recall cue information and response dominance variability.

Hudson, Robert L.

doi:10.1037/h0028371

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This demonstrates that recall was generally better for when the to-be-recalled material was high output-dominant. This supports the notion that the high output-dominant category-exemplars received more semantic/elaborative encoding than the low outputdominant items (Bousfield & Puff, 1964;Cofer et al, 1966;Hudson, 1969).…”

Section: Recall Measuressupporting

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Boundaries of semantic distraction: Dominance and lexicality act at retrieval

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated memory for semantic information with the goal of determining boundary conditions for the manifestation of semantic auditory distraction.Irrelevant speech disrupted the free recall of semantic category-exemplars to an equal degree regardless of whether the speech coincided with presentation or test phases of the task (Experiment 1) and occurred regardless of whether it comprised random words or coherent sentences (Experiment 2). The effects of background speech were greater when the irrelevant speech was semantically related to the to-be-remembered material, but only when the irrelevant words were high in output dominance (Experiment 3). The implications of these findings in relation to the processing of task material and the processing of background speech is discussed.Keywords: Semantic Auditory Distraction, Selective Attention, Interference-by-process, Semantic-Category Clustering RUNNING HEAD: BOUNDARIES OF SEMANTIC DISTRACTION 3There is something special about to-be-ignored background speech. For instance, natural speech is more detrimental to reading comprehension than reversed speech (Oswald, Tremblay, & Jones, 2000) and natural speech is more detrimental to memory of prose than aircraft noise (Sörqvist, 2010). Moreover, background conversation is often a source of complaint, annoyance and self-reported distraction (Evans & Johnson, 2000;Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994;Witterseh, Wyon, & Clausen, 2004).With the exception of its effect on serial short-term memory (Buchner, Irmen, & Erdfelder, 1996;Jones & Macken, 1993;Jones, Madden, & Miles, 1992;Jones, Miles, & Page, 1990;Marsh, Hughes, & Jones, 2008, 2009, speech is invariably the most distracting type of background sound (Marsh & Jones, 2010;Sörqvist, 2010), especially when the task entails processing of meaning (Beaman, 2004;Bell, Buchner, & Mund, 2008;Jones et al., 1990;Marsh, Hughes, & Jones, 2008, 2009Marsh, Beaman, Hughes, & Jones, 2012;Martin et al., 1988;Neely & LeCompte, 1999;Oswald, Tremblay, & Jones, 2000;Sörqvist, Marsh, & Jahncke, 2010;Sörqvist, Nöstl, & Halin, 2012). For instance, recall of a visually-presented list of items taken from the same semantic category (e.g., Fruit) is more impaired when categorically related items (e.g., other Fruit) are spoken in the background in comparison with categorically unrelated items (e.g., Tools). This between-sequence semantic similarity effect is easily replicable (e.g., Sörqvist et al., 2010). However, it appears to necessitate a task instruction that permits and emphasises processing of meaning. The effect is readily observed when the requirement is to free recall to-be-remembered items but fails to materialise when the task instruction emphasises recall in serial order whereby, in contrast to free recall, the processing of meaning plays a much more RUNNING HEAD: BOUNDARIES OF SEMANTIC DISTRACTION 4 subservient role see also Marsh, Vachon, & Jones, 2008). Although effects of the semantic similarity between the to-be-ignored background speech and t...

show abstract

Section: Recall Measuressupporting

confidence: 77%

“…"guava") represents the category that it is a member of ("Fruit"), as indexed by the (Bousfield & Puff, 1964;Cofer, Bruce, & Reicher, 1966;Hudson, 1969). Low output-dominance to-be-remembered material should, thus, be associated with less semantic processing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundaries of semantic distraction: Dominance and lexicality act at retrieval

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was also found that the IB group had a significantly higher clustering index than either the IA group or the NI group, between which there was no difference. Hudson (1969) interpreted these fmdings as indicating that retrieval information must be stored with the target words in order to be effective, which is in line with the hypothesis that words are stored in some dependent manner.…”

supporting

confidence: 74%

“…Her hypotheses were supported. Hudson (1969) reported a similar study where words from the Underwood & Richardson (1956) norms were used as stimuli. The Ss were presented 32 words, eight from each of four categories, and were asked for a single recall after four presentations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present study was designed to extend the findings of Hudson (1969), using a paradigm similar to that of Earhard (1969)_ Specifically, the hypothesis was that Ss would show a drop in recall on the trial in which information about the eategorical nature of the words was given but that onsubsequent trials the recall would increase relative to a control group, as would the clustering index. SUBJECTS The Ss were 50 student volunteers from Mississippi State University.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation