Interpolated retrieval effects on list isolation: Individual differences in working memory capacity

Wahlheim, Christopher N.; Alexander, Timothy R.; Kane, Michael J.

doi:10.3758/s13421-019-00893-w

“…For output order, the PEPPR model predicts that subjects should begin recall with an item from List 1 and that this first output item should come from an early serial position. This prediction is consistent with the probability of first recall analyses of past research (Wahlheim et al, 2019(Wahlheim et al, , 2017Wahlheim & Garlitch, 2020). Moreover, the PEPPER model diverges sharply from the Backward-Walk model in predicting that sampling order should closely follow output order, at least for the first several productions.…”

Section: Implementing Post-encoding Pre-production Reinstatement (Peppr)supporting

confidence: 72%

“…Monitoring processes are then assessed by instructing subjects to withhold productions that are not from the target list. Although EFR has mainly been used in studies where subjects attempt to recall the most recent list (Kahana et al, 2005;Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers, 2010), some studies have used EFR to investigate the effects of age and interpolated retrieval on production and monitoring processes involved in recall from non-recent lists (Wahlheim et al, 2019(Wahlheim et al, , 2017Wahlheim & Garlitch, 2020). To directly compare the Backward-Walk and PEPPR mechanisms, we used EFR data in dual-list free recall from Wahlheim et al (2017).…”

Section: Adjudicating Between Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjects in these tasks recall many items from the non-recent list and, despite the potential retroactive interference from an intervening list, produce few inter-list intrusions (Jang & Huber, 2008;Sahakyan & Hendricks, 2012;Unsworth et al, 2012;Wahlheim & Garlitch, 2020;Wahlheim & Huff, 2015;Wahlheim, Richmond, Huff, & Dobbins, 2016;Ward & Tan, 2004). Here, we model data from the similar dual-list free recall task (e.g., Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers, 2013;Wahlheim, Alexander, & Kane, 2019;Wahlheim et al, 2017). In dual-list free recall, illustrated in Figure 1, subjects study two lists separated by a short break (e.g., a space bar press) and then recall from either the recent list (i.e., List 2) or the earlier list (i.e., List 1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) Model of Dual-List Free Recall

Healey¹,

Cn²

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

2

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent events are easy to recall, but they also interfere with recall of more distant, non-recent events. Many computational models recall non-recent memories by using the context associated with those events as a cue. But some models do little to explain how people initially activate non-recent contexts in the service of accurate recall. We addressed this limitation by evaluating two candidate mechanisms within the Context-Maintenance and Retrieval model. The first is a Backward-Walk mechanism that iteratively applies a generate/recognize process to covertly retrieve progressively less recent items. The second is a Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) mechanism that formally implements a metacognitive control process that reinstates non-recent contexts prior to retrieval. Models including these mechanisms make divergent predictions about the dynamics of response production and monitoring when recalling non-recent items. Before producing non-recent items, Backward-Walk cues covert retrievals of several recent items, whereas PEPPR cues few, if any, covert retrievals of that sort. We tested these predictions using archival data from a dual-list externalized free recall paradigm that required subjects to report all items that came to mind while recalling from the non-recent list. Simulations showed that only the model including PEPPR accurately predicted covert recall patterns. That same model fit the behavioral data well. These findings suggest that self-initiated context reinstatement plays an important role in recall of non-recent memories and provides a formal model that uses a parsimonious non-hierarchical context representation of how such reinstatement might occur.

show abstract

“…Indeed, such moderation has been reported for test-potentiated learning, with test anxiety as moderator (Tse & Pu, 2012). In addition, future research may like to examine the association of WMC to list isolation effects arising from different forms of memory retrieval, e.g., episodic, semantic, and short-term memory retrieval (for related research, see Wahlheim, Alexander, & Kane, 2019), in comparison to non-retrieval baseline conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners’ Working Memory Capacity

Pastötter

¹

,

Frings

²

2019

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forward testing effect refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied information enhances learning and retention of subsequently studied other information. While most of the previous research on the forward testing effect examined group differences, the present study took an individual differences approach to investigate this effect. Experiment 1 examined whether the forward effect has test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. Experiment 2 investigated whether the effect is related to participants’ working memory capacity. In both experiments (and each session of Experiment 1), participants studied three lists of items in anticipation of a final cumulative recall test. In the testing condition, participants were tested immediately on lists 1 and 2, whereas in the restudy condition, they restudied lists 1 and 2. In both conditions, participants were tested immediately on list 3. On the group level, the results of both experiments demonstrated a forward testing effect, with interim testing of lists 1 and 2 enhancing immediate recall of list 3. On the individual level, the results of Experiment 1 showed that the forward effect on list 3 recall has moderate test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. In addition, the results of Experiment 2 showed that the forward effect on list 3 recall does not depend on participants’ working memory capacity. These findings suggest that the forward testing effect is reliable at the individual level and affects learners at a wide range of working memory capacities alike. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…Indeed, such moderation has been reported for test-potentiated learning, with test anxiety as moderator (Tse & Pu, 2012). In addition, future research may like to examine the association of WMC to list isolation effects arising from different forms of memory retrieval, e.g., episodic, semantic, and short-term memory retrieval (for related research, see Wahlheim, Alexander, & Kane, 2019), in comparison to nonretrieval baseline conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The forward testing effect is reliable and independent of learners’ working memory capacity

Pastötter¹,

Frings²

2019

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forward testing effect refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied information enhances learning and retention of subsequently studied other information. While most of the previous research on the forward testing effect examined group differences, the present study took an individual differences approach to investigate this effect. Experiment 1 examined whether the forward effect has test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. Experiment 2 investigated whether the effect is related to participants’ working memory capacity. In both experiments (and each session of Experiment 1), participants studied three lists of items in anticipation of a final cumulative recall test. In the testing condition, participants were tested immediately on lists 1 and 2, whereas in the restudy condition, they restudied lists 1 and 2. In both conditions, participants were tested immediately on list 3. On the group level, the results of both experiments demonstrated a forward testing effect, with interim testing of lists 1 and 2 enhancing immediate recall of list 3. On the individual level, the results of Experiment 1 showed that the forward effect on list 3 recall has moderate test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. In addition, the results of Experiment 2 showed that the forward effect on list 3 recall does not depend on participants’ working memory capacity. These findings suggest that the forward testing effect is reliable at the individual level and affects learners at a wide range of working memory capacities alike. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

Interpolated retrieval effects on list isolation: Individual differences in working memory capacity

Cited by 9 publications

References 63 publications

A Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) Model of Dual-List Free Recall

A Post-Encoding Pre-Production Reinstatement (PEPPR) Model of Dual-List Free Recall

The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners’ Working Memory Capacity

The forward testing effect is reliable and independent of learners’ working memory capacity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About