Generality of a congruity effect in judgements of relative order

Liu, Yang S.; Chan, Michelle; Caplan, Jeremy B.

doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0426-x

Cited by 8 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unsurprisingly, their JOR task replicated the canonical results from relative JOR, with correct RTs failing to show an e↵ect of the lag to the less recent probe, consistent with a backward self-terminating scanning model. Remarkably, however, when the instructions were reversed the pattern of results for correct RTs was consistent with a forward selfterminating scanning model (see also Liu, Chan, & Caplan, 2014). This suggests that a temporally-organized representation can be accessed strategically.…”

Section: Is Scanning Under Strategic Control?supporting

confidence: 77%

“…Similarly, the minimal dependence of judged recency on previous presentations of a stimulus (Hintzman, 2010) is a natural consequence of a backward self-terminating model. The forward scanning results (Chan et al, 2009;Liu et al, 2014) could result from recovery of the temporal context at the start of the list (Davelaar, Goshen-Gottstein, Ashkenazi, Haarmann, & Usher, 2005) followed by a forward scan using a translation operator (Shankar, Singh, & Howard, 2016). The major gap in reconciling short-term (this study, Muter, 1979;Hacker, 1980;Hockley, 1984;McElree & Dosher, 1993) and long-term (Hinrichs & Buschke, 1968;Hintzman, 2010;Yntema & Trask, 1963) JORs is the lack of RT data for judgments over scales more than a few seconds.…”

Section: A Common Model For Jors Across Scales?mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recency order judgments in short term memory: Replication and extension of Hacker (1980)

Singh

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The classic finding from short-term relative JOR tasks is that correct response time (RT) depends on the lag to the more recent item but not to the less recent item (Hacker, 1980). For decades, researchers have argued that this finding is consistent with a self-terminating backward scanning model (Muter, 1979;Hacker, 1980;Hockley, 1984;McElree & Dosher, 1993). This finding has taken on new importance in light of recent proposal that many forms of memory depend on a compressed representation of the past (Howard, Shankar, Aue, & Criss, 2015). This paper replicates and extends the results of the classic papers. A Bayesian t-test showed substantial evidence for the null e↵ect of lag to the less recent item on correct RT. In addition, this paper reports that correct RT is a sub-linear function of lag to the more recent probe and replicates the classic finding that error RT depends on lag to the less recent probe. These findings place new constraints on models of short-term memory scanning.In a relative judgment of recency (JOR) task participants choose which of two probes from a list was presented more recently. Recency in this task is traditionally measured in units of lag, which is the number of time steps in the past at which the probe was presented. That is, if the last item in the list was presented as a probe, it would be associated with a lag of one. The classic finding from short-term relative JOR tasks is that correct response time (RT) depends on the lag to the more recent item but not to the less recent item (see Fig. 1, Muter, 1979;Hacker, 1980;Hockley, 1984). For decades, researchers have argued that this finding is consistent with a self-terminating backward scan (Muter, 1979;Hacker, 1980;Hockley, 1984;McElree & Dosher, 1993). Because the scan starts at the present and proceeds backwards in time, RTs show a recency e↵ect. Because the scan is self-terminating this naturally accounts for the finding that correct RTs do not depend on the lag of the less-

show abstract

Section: Is Scanning Under Strategic Control?supporting

confidence: 77%

Section: A Common Model For Jors Across Scales?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Recency order judgments in short term memory: Replication and extension of Hacker (1980)

Singh

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To maintain continuity with previous studies (Chan, Ross, Earle, & Caplan, 2009;Liu, Chan, & Caplan, 2014), stimuli were 16 consonants (excluding S, W, X, and Z) from the English alphabet displayed in uppercase. Each list comprised nine consonants drawn at random without replacement from the stimulus pool.…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experiment was implemented with the Python Experiment-Programming Library (PyEPL; Geller et al, 2007). The procedure for the Control condition was identical to Liu et al's (2014) judgements of relative order experiment, but with list length 9 and a serial-recall test. Depending on grouping, participants were either asked to type the list in forward or backward order: (a) Excerpt from "forward" instruction: ".…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal grouping and direction of serial recall

Liu

Caplan

2020

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When lists are presented with temporal pauses between groups of items, participants' response times reiterate those pauses. Accuracy is also increased, especially at particular serial positions. By comparing forward with backward serial recall, we tested whether the influence of temporal grouping is primarily a function of serial position or output position. Results favored the latter, both when recall direction was known to participants prior to (Experiment 1) or only after (Experiment 2) studying each list. Alongside fits of variants of a temporal distinctiveness-based model, our findings suggest that the influence of temporal grouping is not just a consequence of grouping information stored during the study phase. Rather, it critically depends on participants cueing with within-chunk position during recall, combined with response suppression.

show abstract

“…In the case of judgments of relative order, that stimulus dimension (time or position) may thus function very much like any other stimulus dimension, as Brown et al (2007) proposed. Liu et al (2014) found that the congruity effect could be well fit by a self-terminating search model (Hacker, 1980;McElree, 2006) if it could switch directions depending on the instruction (searching the list in the forward direction for the earlier instruction and in the backward direction for the later instruction), but only at short list lengths. They noted that the Hacker (1980) sequential, selfterminating search model saved response time when list-items were unavailable in memory, but they could find no published model that would actually save any time in this way.…”

Section: The Congruity Effect In Judgments Of Relative Order and Consmentioning

confidence: 99%

Order-memory and association-memory.

Caplan

2015

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two highly studied memory functions are memory for associations (items presented in pairs, such as SALT-PEPPER) and memory for order (a list of items whose order matters, such as a telephone number). Order- and association-memory are at the root of many forms of behaviour, from wayfinding, to language, to remembering people's names. Most researchers have investigated memory for order separately from memory for associations. Exceptions to this, associative-chaining models build an ordered list from associations between pairs of items, quite literally understanding association- and order-memory together. Alternatively, positional-coding models have been used to explain order-memory as a completely distinct function from association-memory. Both classes of model have found empirical support and both have faced serious challenges. I argue that models that combine both associative chaining and positional coding are needed. One such hybrid model, which relies on brain-activity rhythms, is promising, but remains to be tested rigourously. I consider two relatively understudied memory behaviours that demand a combination of order- and association-information: memory for the order of items within associations (is it William James or James William?) and judgments of relative order (who left the party earlier, Hermann or William?). Findings from these underexplored procedures are already difficult to reconcile with existing association-memory and order-memory models. Further work with such intermediate experimental paradigms has the potential to provide powerful findings to constrain and guide models into the future, with the aim of explaining a large range of memory functions, encompassing both association- and order-memory.

show abstract

Generality of a congruity effect in judgements of relative order

Cited by 8 publications

References 64 publications

Recency order judgments in short term memory: Replication and extension of Hacker (1980)

Recency order judgments in short term memory: Replication and extension of Hacker (1980)

Temporal grouping and direction of serial recall

Order-memory and association-memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About