Hierarchical organization as a determinant of sequential learning

Marmurek, Harvey H. C.; Johnson, Neal F.

doi:10.3758/bf03197452

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There already was some evidence that people can remember 3 to 5 chunks in a situation in which they are to replicate a chessboard, with pauses between groups of pieces defining a chunk (Gobet & Simon 1998). We hoped to extend the evidence to verbal recall, in which there is strong evidence of chunking processes (e.g., Johnson 1978;Marmurek & Johnson 1978). Tulving and Patkau (1962) already found that presenting material with associations between items resulted in the recall of larger chunks, but not more chunks.…”

Section: Does Not Depend On Using a Dual Task To Examine Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 89%

What do estimates of working memory capacity tell us?

Cowan

Morey

Chen³

et al. 2007

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We sketch our recent research leading toward a revision of the concept of working memory capacity. This includes a rationale for believing that working memory capacity is a fundamental ability, and for estimating working memory based on the number of independent chunks of information recalled. We provide evidence that the often-noted relation between working memory and both individual and developmental differences in intellectual aptitudes does not

show abstract

Section: Does Not Depend On Using a Dual Task To Examine Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 89%

What do estimates of working memory capacity tell us?

Cowan

Morey

Chen³

et al. 2007

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior research already showed that associations between words could assist in immediate recall (Cumming, Page, & Norris, 2003;Hulme, Stuart, Brown, & Morin, 2003;Stuart & Hulme, 2000). In order to create chunks that varied in size between conditions, Cowan et al (2004) used a training phase to manipulate the association strength within word pairs (for related research, see Anderson & Matessa, 1997;Bowles & Healy, 2003;Johnson, 1978;Marmurek & Johnson, 1978;Ryan, 1969;Slak, 1970;Wickelgren, 1964Wickelgren, , 1967. Cowan et al presented printed words in five training conditions: no-study and zero-, one-, two-, or four-pairing conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chunk Limits and Length Limits in Immediate Recall: A Reconciliation.

Chen¹,

Cowan²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

104

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas some research on immediate recall of verbal lists has suggested that it is limited by the number of chunks that can be recalled (e.g., N. Cowan, Z. Chen,& J. N. Rouder, 2004; E. Tulving & J. E. Patkau, 1962), other research has suggested that it is limited by the length of the material to be recalled (e.g., A. D. Baddeley, N. Thomson, & M. Buchanan, 1975). The authors investigated this question by teaching new paired associations between words to create 2-word chunks. The results suggest that both chunk capacity limits and length limits come into play. For the free recall of 12-word lists, 6 pre-learned pairs could be recalled about as well as 6 pre-exposed singletons, suggesting a chunk limit. However, for the serially ordered recall of 8-word lists, 4 pre-learned pairs could be recalled about as well as 8 pre-exposed singletons, suggesting a length limit. Other conditions yielded intermediate results suggesting that sometimes both limits may operate together.

show abstract

“…The seven-item limit is a description of empirical evidence and therefore is not open to much debate, although it can vary when factors such as word length and phonological similarity are manipulated (Baddeley, 1986). The importance of chunking and grouping is almost universally accepted and has been explored in depth (e.g., Anderson, Bothell, Lebiere, & Matessa, 1998; Bowles & Healy, 2003; Ericsson, Chase, & Faloon, 1980; Frankish, 1985; Frick, 1989; Gobet et al, 2001; Hitch, Burgess, Towse, & Culpin, 1996; Marmurek & Johnson, 1978; Ng & Maybery, 2002; Ryan, 1969; Slak, 1970; Towse, Hitch, & Skeates, 1999; Wickelgren, 1967). Unlike these topics, though, the constant-capacity hypothesis has rarely been tested (though see Tulving & Patkau, 1962).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constant Capacity in an Immediate Serial-Recall Task

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed a hypothesis that working memory capacity should include a constant number of separate mental units, or chunks (cf. Miller, 1956). Because of the practical difficulty of measuring chunks, this hypothesis has not been tested previously, despite wide attention to Miller's article. We used a training procedure to manipulate the strength of associations between pairs of words to be included in an immediate serial-recall task. Although the amount of training on associations clearly increased the availability of two-item chunks and therefore the number of items correct in list recall, the number of total chunks recalled (singletons plus two-word chunks) appeared to remain approximately constant across association strengths, supporting a hypothesis of constant capacity.

show abstract

Hierarchical organization as a determinant of sequential learning

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

What do estimates of working memory capacity tell us?

What do estimates of working memory capacity tell us?

Chunk Limits and Length Limits in Immediate Recall: A Reconciliation.

Constant Capacity in an Immediate Serial-Recall Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About