Order information is used to guide recall of long lists: Further evidence for the item-order account.

Abstract

Differences in memory for item order have been used to explain the absence of between-subjects (i.e., pure-list) effects in free recall for several encoding techniques, including the production effect, the finding that reading aloud benefits memory compared with reading silently. Notably, however, evidence in support of the item-order account (Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991) has derived primarily from short-list paradigms. We provide novel evidence that the item-order account also applies when recalling long lists. In Experiment 1, participants studied and then free recalled 3 different long lists of words: pure aloud, pure silent, and mixed (half aloud, half silent). A Bayesian analysis supported a null pure-list production effect, and subsequent order analyses were largely consistent with the item-order account. These findings indicate that order information is retained in long-term memory and is useful in guiding subsequent free recall. In Experiment 2, a distractor task was inserted between the study and test phases, ensuring that only long-term memory processes were involved in recall: The pattern of results remained consistent with the item-order account. Order information can be retained in long-term memory for long lists, and is useful in guiding subsequent free recall, extending the domain of the item-order account. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Production Effect in Memory

“…In addition, MacLeod et al (2010) found a reliable within-list production effect even when elaborative processing was initially required for both produced and unproduced words—accomplished either by a level of processing or a generation task prior to production (see also Forrin, Jonker, & MacLeod, 2014). Yet there is also evidence that part of the within-list production effect in recognition reflects a cost (e.g., Forrin, Groot, & MacLeod, 2016), suggesting a possible influence of “lazy reading.” As mentioned earlier, in free recall the between-lists effect is absent and the within-list effect appears to be almost exclusively due to a cost (Forrin & MacLeod, 2016; Jones & Pyc, 2014; Jonker, Levene, & MacLeod, 2014; Lambert, Bodner, & Taikh, 2016). This difference across recognition and recall is surprising given current accounts of the production effect, to which we now turn.…”

“…2). When the memory test is free recall, on the other hand, a within-list effect is consistently found, whereas a between-lists effect is consistently absent (see Forrin & MacLeod, 2016). These patterns provide valuable clues about the mechanisms driving the production effect.…”

Putting action into testing: Enacted retrieval benefits long-term retention more than covert retrieval

“…Finally, the magnitude of the testing effect was not significantly affected by list composition in free recall (with only a numerical advantage in mixed lists; Karpicke & Zaromb, 2010; Rowland et al, 2014; for similar results in cued recall, see Abel & Roediger, 2017). In contrast, in free recall, the effects of enactment and production were moderated by list composition; the enactment effect was greater in mixed practice than in blocked practice but generally robust (Jahn & Engelkamp, 2003; but see Steffens et al, 2015, for comparing enactment vs. observation conditions); the production effect in free recall, however, only occurred with mixed practice, while it vanished or turned negative with blocked practice (Forrin & MacLeod, 2016; Jones & Pyc, 2014; Jonker et al, 2014). Together, these results support our conclusion that the retrieval and encoding effects of enactment (and production) rely in parts on different mechanisms; moreover, both enactment and production produce quite similar results patterns and were attributed to similar mechanisms (distinctive cue–target relational and item-specific processing), despite the fact that they were investigated in rather independent research fields.…”

“…The retrieval practice effect has been shown to be powerful and generally robust across diverse experimental designs (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), although this mnemonic benefit was most pronounced in free recall and cued recall, producing a significantly greater benefit than in recognition (for meta-analytic results, see Rowland et al, 2014). The opposite results pattern has been observed for the enactment effect (e.g., Steffens et al, 2009) and the production effect (cf., MacLeod & Bodner, 2017), with robust benefits in cued recall and recognition (enactment: Steffens et al, 2006, 2009; production: Fawcett, 2013; Putnam et al, 2014), although producing smaller sized or null effects in free recall (enactment: Kubik, Obermeyer, et al, 2014; Steffens et al, 2009; production: Forrin & MacLeod, 2016; Jonker et al, 2014) or even negative effects (enactment: Steffens, 1999; production: Jones & Pyc, 2014). Similarly, retrieval practice effects were significantly greater utilising between-, compared to within-, subjects designs (Rowland et al, 2014); however, encoding effects of both enactment (Jahn & Engelkamp, 2003) and production (in recognition; Fawcett, 2013; MacLeod et al, 2010) are more pronounced in within-subjects designs.…”

Testing potential mechanisms underlying test-potentiated new learning.

“…To measure output order, we adopted a bidirectional pair frequency method (Anderson & Watts, 1969; Sternberg & Tulving, 1977). Specifically, we quantified output order via direction transition scores (DTSs), which represent the extent to which a given individual organizes retrieval in a forward or backward direction (Forrin & Macleod, 2016). Imagine that a participant correctly recalls four words, and the serial positions of these words are 5, 10, 2, and 11, respectively.…”