Hearing by Eye

Campbell, Ruth; Dodd, Barbara

doi:10.1080/00335558008248235

Cited by 238 publications

(238 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The theoretical underpinnings of the modality effect are therefore at issue, and some new accounts have been proposed. For example, Campbell and Dodd (1980) suggested that changing-state stimuli, through unstated mechanisms, may determine when recency effects are obtained; alternatively, Shand and Klima (1981) proposed that recency effects will be found whenever to-be-recalled stimuli are presented in a format that is compatible with the subject's normal dominant coding format in short-term memory. Despite some local success with the reported data at hand, neither of these proposals has proven capable of explaining the broad range of presentation conditions that can affect recency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PAS model has proven capable of explaining a wide range of empirical results (see Crowder, 1976Crowder, , 1978a, for reviews), although recent demonstrations of substantial auditory-like serial recall patterns with nonauditory stimuli that are lipread (Campbell & Dodd, 1980;Spoehr & Corin, 1978) or silently mouthed (Greene & Crowder, 1984;Nairne & Walters, 1983) have proven difficult for the theory to handle. The theoretical underpinnings of the modality effect are therefore at issue, and some new accounts have been proposed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…My intention is to provide a more extensive set of assumptions than those of Campbell and Dodd (1980) and Shand and Klima (1981), although the discussion remains at a qualitative level of analysis. As a result, I am not proposing a formal theory of immedite serial recall, but rather a set of ideas relevant to the interpretation of recency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A descriptive framework is offered for the interpretation of recency effects in immediate serial recall. Basic to the framework is a distinction between two types of trace features: (1) modalitydependent features, which represent the perceptual qualities of presentation, and (2) modalityindependent features, which result from the set of encoding operations known as the "inner voice." Recency and modality effects emerge because certain types of modality-dependent (i.e., languagebased) features are typically not subject to postlist interfering events and are likely to be sampled as discriminative cues in recall. The framework is used to interpret problematic findings in the modality effect literature, such as the effects of visual presentation, lipreading, mouthing, and stimulus class on the recall of recency items.The question of how we remember recently presented information as it recedes backward in time has occupied the attention of memory theorists for some time. The typical finding that items near the end of a list are remembered best has served as an empirical cornerstone for a number of memory issues; for example, the separation between primary and secondary memory stores has relied on variations in the recency effect in free recall for much of its empirical base (see Greene, 1986, for a review). The concern of the present article, however, is with the recency effect in immediate serial recall, a procedure in which subjects are presented with relatively short lists of items to be recalled immediately in the exact order of presentation. Of particular interest is the finding that the size of the recency effect in immediate serial recall is dramatically affected by the specific modality of stimulus presentation. The modality effect, as it is termed, refers to the fact that recency performance is enhanced for auditorally presented items relative to silent visual controls (Conrad

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors are greatly indebted 10 Robert G. Crowder for invaluable suggestions and friendly support. Correspondence should be addressed 10 Marco W. Battachi, Department of Psychology, Viale Berti Pichat,5,ltaly. tained when the subject watches an experimenter silently articulate the lists (i.e., the subject lip-reads; see Campbell & Dodd, 1980Gathercole, Gardiner, & Gregg, 1981). The recency effect in lip-read lists is reduced by a lip-read suffix (Campbell, 1987;Gathercole, 1987;Greene & Crowder, 1984), as well as by an auditory or mouthed suffix (Campbell, 1987;Campbell & Dodd, 1980Gathereole, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a modality effect? Evidence for visual recency and suffix effects

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, four groups of 16 subjeets performed ordered recall of six-syllable lists in both suffix and nonsuffix conditions. Sequential presentation of the lists varied for eaeh group. In the auditory presentation, the syllables were delivered from one location only and were read aloud by the subjects. For the visual, spatially nondistributed presentation, the syllables appeared in one loeation only and were read silently. For visual, spatially distributed presentations, the syllables were spread out either vertically or horizontally and were read silently. Very robust receney and auffix effects were found in the auditory presentation, as well as in visual, spatially distributed presentations. In Experiment 2, 16 subjeets performed ordered reeall of visually presented lists with the items spread out vertieally and eonflicting spatial and temporal orders. A reliable receney effect was found for the final block oftrials. In Experiment 3,16 subjeets performed ordered recall in the same eonditions as in Experiment 2, exeept that they were instructed to reeall the temporal order in whieh the spatial positions would be filled in. A bow-shaped eurve and a strong reeency effeet were obtained.In the immediate ordered reeall of a list of items presented one at a time, recall of the last one or two items is better following auditory presentation than following visual presentation. This larger recency effect for auditory presentation than for visual presentation, known as the modality effect, is reduced or abolished when an extra item, a suffix, follows the end of the list (the suffix effect). Until relatively recently, these effects were believed to be well explained by Crowder and Morton's (1969) model of sensory memory (precategorical acoustic storage, or PAS). According to the PAS model, auditory information persists longer in an auditory sensory store than does visual information in a visual sensory store. The sensory, or eehoic, traee of a heard list would therefore provide an additional souree of information for recall of the last item(s). In contrast, the sensory, or iconic, trace of a seen list, being of much shorter duration, cannot provide extra information. When a suffix is added, it interferes with information about the last item(s) within the aeoustic storage and thereby subtraets the additional source of information.In recent years, results that are not consistent with the PAS model have been accumulating. Modality and suffix effects have been found in many conditions in which no auditory information is available. A modality effect is ob-

show abstract

“…According to the changingstate hypothesis (Campbell & Dodd, 1980; see also Campbell, Dodd, & Brasher, 1983), the suffix effect occurs only with dynamic stimuli-that is, stimuli that change or unfold over time. Campbell and Dodd argued that suffix effects "may reflect a general tendency for changing state information to be processed differently than information (usually visual) which can be resolved simultaneously" (p. 97).…”

Section: Alternative Accounts Of the Suffix Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-component theory of the suffix effect: Contrary evidence

Bloom

2006

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The suffix effect is the selective impairment in recall of the final items of a spoken list when the list is followed by a nominally irrelevant speech item, or suffix. It is widely assumed to comprise a bottomup, or structural, effect restricted to the terminal item and a top-down, or conceptually sensitive, effect confined to the preterminal items. Reported here are eight experiments that challenge this view by demonstrating that the terminal suffix effect, as well as the preterminal suffix effect, is susceptible to conceptual influence. The entire suffix effect may be better conceived of as a phenomenon arising from perceptual grouping.

show abstract

Hearing by Eye

Cited by 238 publications

References 15 publications

A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall

A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall

Is there a modality effect? Evidence for visual recency and suffix effects

Two-component theory of the suffix effect: Contrary evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About