Context Effects in Running Memory

Abstract

7 groups of college-age Ss attempted to recall whether the next to last symbol was the “same” or “different” from the viewed symbol in a running series of 42 symbols. 6 of the groups also predicted the recall outcome on successive trials. Expectancy did not influence retention, but a negative recency effect sensitive to symbol runs resulted from predictions. Results from memory errors contradicted the concept of a fixed running recall-span. Evidence was found for (a) recall generalization to the symbol before the next to last symbol and (b) good recall accuracy where the viewed symbol was separated from its last occurrence by at least three intervening symbols. Consideration of short-term memory from the standpoint of association formation is deemed inadequate.

Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide

“…Thus, the subjects retain only the most recent n items that are presented and continuously drop items from the maintenance/rehearsal set once the list length exceeds n. Similarly, the keeping-track task (Yntema & Mueser, 1960, 1962) presents a list of items, of unknown length and from n categories (the memory load), and subjects retain only the most recent exemplar of each category. Finally, the n-back task (Kirchner, 1958;Mackworth, 1959;Moore & Ross, 1963) presents a list of items in which the subject must continuously report whether each item matches the one that had appeared n items ago in the stream (n typically ranges from 1 to 4). In a two-back task, for example, subjects must continuously maintain the last 2 items in the list, updating this memory set with each new item and dropping out the least recent one.…”

Identifying experimental methods to determine the effect of pain on attention: a review of pain, caffeine, alcohol and nicotine studies

“…n-back (Moore and Ross, 1963): a series of digits are presented; participants report the stimulus which was presented n-stimuli ago. To correctly perform this task participants must display the ability to hold information within the attentional system.…”

Serial Order as a Unique Source of Error in Running Memory1

“…S was required to say whether each successively viewed symbol in a running, randomly ordered series was the "same" or "different" from the symbol seen a specified number of symbols back in the series, e.g., a 2-back match-back would require the next-the-last symbol. The present paper extends the work of an earlier study on "context effects in running memory" (Moore & ROSS, 1963) which first used this sunning matching memory ( R M M ) task. The previous srudy manipulated context by varying ( 1 ) the number of different symbols composing individual series of symbols and ( 2 ) the different symbol combinations occurring within a symbol series.…”

“…The previous study (Moore & Ross, 1963) showed that serial order produces several systematic memory errors. The more comprehensive aim of the present study is to show that serial order is a anique source of error in running memory.…”