Processing demand and short-term memory: The response-prefix effect.

Jahnke, John C.; Nowaczyk, Ronald H.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.3.3.325

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The "prefix effect" (discovered by Conrad, 1958) is an impairment in immediate recall produced by emission of a redundant digit immediately before the tobe-recalled items are reported. The impairment is not caused by the delay the prefix creates (Conrad, 1960) and is not caused by the act of retrieval from memory or by the added load on memory (Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1977). The prefix effect is similar to the stimulus suffix effect, which is an impairment in immediate recall produced by hearing a digit after presentation of the to-be-recalled items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Frick

1985

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments testing immediate ordered recall are presented; in these experiments, subjects engaged in repetitive speech ("articulatory suppression") during a visual presentation in order to prevent auditory recoding of the stimuli. In both experiments, a simultaneous presentation produced results that suggested the use of visual short-term memory, whereas a sequential presentation did not. In Experiment 1, visual confusion errors occurred more often than would be expected by chance for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. In Experiment 2, recall from visual short-term memory was expected to suffer more when subjects wrote a prefix than when they spoke a prefix; this effect occurred for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. These results suggest that existence of a visual shortterm store that retains a simultaneous presentation but not a sequential presentation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Frick

1985

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first is modality-specific interference. Speaking a digit, either retrieved from longterm memory or read from a screen, interferes with auditory short-term memory (Dallet, 1964;Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1977). Therefore, assuming dual storage was achieved, reporting the nonauditorily stored digits first would probably interfere with the auditory store.…”

Section: Mixedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span

Frick

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can digit span be increased by storing digits nonredundantly in both an auditory short-term store and a visual short-term store (dual storage)? In Experiment 1, when four digits were presented visually and then the remaining digits were presented auditorily, digit span increased three digits over a baseline measurement, but only when the auditorily presented digits were reported first (inverted response). Normal order of response for this presentation was not as effective. Possible reasons for the advantage of inverted response are suggested, based upon dual storage. For allauditory and all-visual presentations that controlled for parsing, digit span increased only 1 to 1.5 digits over baseline, and inverted and normal order of response did not differ. Experiment 2 demonstrated that an improvement for dual storage could occur when the type of presentation was held constant and the order of response was normal rather than inverted. The results are consistent with the idea of separate auditory and visual short-term stores.

show abstract

“…of Martin (1978Martin ( , 1980, others have looked at the effects of emitting one or more "prefix" items before report of the to-be-recalled material (Conrad, 1958(Conrad, , 1960Crowder, 1967;Dallett, 1964;Jahnke, 1975;Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1977). By adapting that paradigm, it is possible to vary the familiarity of the prefix, and so to contrast disruption due to production with problems of assembly.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To return to arguments raised at the beginning of this article, the structure of memory can be revealed by the patterns of interference between tasks. In contrast to the paradigm of Martin (1978, 1980), others have looked at the effects of emitting one or more “prefix” items before report of the to-be-recalled material (Conrad, 1958, 1960; Crowder, 1967; Dallett, 1964; Jahnke, 1975; Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1977). By adapting that paradigm, it is possible to vary the familiarity of the prefix, and so to contrast disruption due to production with problems of assembly.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%