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

Abstract

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-

Time Space and Memory for Order

“…An additional finding from this experiment was that the effect of presentation direction is clearest in the recency portion of the serial recall curve, consistent with Battacchi et al (1990).…”

“…Previous studies that have manipulated the spatial position of items during ISR have compared recall for centrally presented lists with either congruent spatial presentations (e.g., Battacchi, Pelamatti & Umiltà, 1990;Hitch & Morton, 1975;LeCompte, 1992), or presentations with random spatial positions (e.g., Healy, 1975;Li & Lewandowsky, 1995;McDowd & Madigan, 1991). Results have been mixed; while effects of spatially-distributed presentation have been reported for backward recall (Li & Lewandowsky, 1995) and for the recency portion of forward recall (Battacchi et al, 1990), most studies report no differences.…”

“…Because serial position effects were expected to be non-linear, serial position was coded as a categorical variable. Following the results of Battacchi et al (1990), we used orthogonal planned contrasts to evaluate whether the congruence effects were larger at later serial positions. Specifically, we contrast-coded serial position using Helmert coding, a scheme in which the effect at one level of an ordinal factor is contrasted with the mean of all previous levels.…”

“…Results have been mixed; while effects of spatially-distributed presentation have been reported for backward recall (Li & Lewandowsky, 1995) and for the recency portion of forward recall (Battacchi et al, 1990), most studies report no differences. Comparisons between central presentation and either congruent or random-position lists are not a straightforward test of the compatible representation hypothesis; because the items are spread out, congruent and random spatial position lists have greater visual distinctiveness than centrally presented lists.…”

Spatially distributed stimuli show little effect of recency with either visual or auditory presentation

“…However, the standard method of presenting both visual and auditory stimuli consists of temporal presentation in a single location. Having used a new procedure, in which stimuli were spatially distributed, Battacchi, Pelamatti, and Umilta (1990) reported a robust effect of visual recency in immediate serial recall, similar to that found with auditory stimuli. Their subjects were native speakers ofltalian.…”