Recall of order information by deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal order recall

Hanson, Vicki L.

doi:10.3758/bf03197103

Cited by 46 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For both young and elderly groups, the 1st two words recalled corresponded to the words presented in the same position on the list, suggesting a similar search strategy based on short-term memory. Hanson (16) reported similar findings in a study assessing the role of the phonetic code in retaining information in short-term memory.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Cognitive performance of young and elderly subjects on the free word recall memory test: effect of presentation order on recall order

Santos-Galduróz

Oliveira

Galduróz

et al. 2009

Braz J Med Biol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of aging on memory has been extensively studied, but the importance of short-term memory and recall sequence has not. The objective of the current study was to examine the recall order of words presented on lists and to determine if age affects recall sequence. Physically and psychologically healthy male subjects were divided into two groups according to age, i.e., 23 young subjects (20 to 30 years) and 50 elderly subjects (60 to 70 years) submitted to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised and the free word recall test. The order of word presentation significantly affected the 3rd and 4th words recalled (P < 0.01; F = 14.6). In addition, there was interaction between the presentation order and the type of list presented (P < 0.05; F = 9.7). Also, both groups recalled the last words presented from each list (words 13-15) significantly more times 3rd and 4th than words presented in all remaining positions (P < 0.01). The order of word presentation also significantly affected the 5th and 6th words recalled (P = 0.05; F = 7.5) and there was a significant interaction between the order of presentation and the type of list presented (P < 0.01; F = 20.8). The more developed the cognitive functions, resulting mainly from formal education, the greater the cognitive reserve, helping to minimize the effects of aging on the long-term memory (episodic declarative)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Cognitive performance of young and elderly subjects on the free word recall memory test: effect of presentation order on recall order

Santos-Galduróz

Oliveira

Galduróz

et al. 2009

Braz J Med Biol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus the difference in STM span between speakers and signers might arise, at least in part, from the STM span task requirement of recalling items in serial order, combined with the use of stimuli with a clear temporal pattern but little, if any, spatial patterning. The proposal that serial order recall drives the STM span difference across languages is further supported by reports that speakers and signers show similar STM performance in tasks that do not require ordered recall, such as the signing span task presented in experiment 3 or free recall tasks of linguistic information 40,41 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Short-term memory span: insights from sign language

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term memory (STM), or the ability to hold information in mind for a few seconds, is thought to be limited in its capacity to about 7 ± 2 items. Notably, the average STM capacity when using American Sign Language (ASL) rather than English is only 5 ± 1 items. Here we show that, contrary to previous interpretations, this difference cannot be attributed to phonological factors, item duration or reduced memory abilities in deaf people. We also show that, despite this difference in STM span, hearing speakers and deaf ASL users have comparable working memory resources during language use, indicating similar abilities to maintain and manipulate linguistic information. The shorter STM span in ASL users therefore confirms the view that the spoken span of 7 ± 2 is an exception, probably owing to the reliance of speakers on auditory-based rather than visually based representations in linguistic STM, and calls for adjustments in the norms used with deaf individuals.Working memory refers to the capacity-limited ability to maintain and manipulate information relevant to an ongoing task. Over the years, a large number of studies have focused on the part of working memory dedicated to short-term maintenance of information, which is known as STM. As reports have documented a significant relationship between the size of the STM capacity for linguistic material and language abilities (for review, see refs. 1,2 ), much work has been conducted to uncover the mechanisms underlying the STM capacity limit. One of the most common measures of capacity limits in STM is the digit span task 3 , where subjects must repeat lists of digits in the same order as they are presented (i.e., forward serial recall). The number of digits to be recalled is progressively increased, and the STM span is defined as the longest sequence reported correctly. As noted in a seminal study in 1956 by Miller 4 , our ability to process information in such short-term memory tasks has a capacity limit of seven plus or minus two items. The 'magical number' of 7 ± 2 has been widely confirmed as the capacity limit in STM since this early work.However, the view that 7 ± 2 is the standard capacity of STM has been recently questioned. When non-nameable materials are used, the span of STM drops to four or five items 5 (for review, see ref. 6 ). It has been proposed that a STM span of 7 ± 2 is the exception rather than the rule. One hypothesis is that the exceptionally high STM span of 7 ± 2 is specific to linguistic material and derives from the ability of humans to chunk linguistic information 6 . An alternative possibility, however, is that the exceptionally high STM span of 7 ± 2 might be an effect of modality, arising from greater STM capacity for encoding serial information in auditory STM as compared to visual STM. In the present studies, we examined STM span in native users of ASL, which offers a unique opportunity to separate the contributions of language versus modality to STM capacity.

show abstract

“…For instance, deaf subjects have an English-based code available to them in working memory as well as an ASL-based code (Campbell & Wright, 1989;Dodd, Hobson, Brasher, & Campbell, 1983;Hanson, 1982Hanson, , 1990. In addition, some of our subjects reported using conceptual or elaborative strategies, such as imagining pairs of items related in some way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, the question of whether working memory could support an articulatory rehearsal loop in the visuospatial domain was investigated. Deaf subjects fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) were tested on immediate serial recall. In Experiment 1,using ASLstimuli, evidence for manual motoric coding (worse recall under articulatory suppression) was found, replicating findings of ASL-based phonological coding (worse recall for phonologically similar lists). The two effects did not interact, suggesting separate components which both contribute to performance. Stimuli in Experiment 2 were namable pictures, which had to be recoded for ASL-based rehearsal to occur. Under these conditions, articulatory suppression eliminated the phonological similarity effect. Thus, an articulatory process seems to be used in translating pictures into a phonological code for memory maintenance. These results indicate a configuration of components similar to the phonological loop for speech, suggesting that working memory can develop a language-based rehearsal loop in the visuospatial modality.Research on working memory has focused on two domains: verbal and visuospatial. The functioning of the verbal domain has been well mapped. A large body ofresearch shows that representations of speech phonology and mechanisms of speech output form a partnership, called the "phonological loop," for maintaining verbal information (Baddeley, 1986;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). In contrast, the visuospatial domain of working memory has been less tractable. The relationship between visual and spatial working memory, the relationship between sensory storage and motoric processes, and the mechanisms by which retention or "rehearsal" might occur within visuospatial working memory are issues that remain unresolved. Thus, unlike the phonological loop, the "visuospatial scratch pad" has failed to reveal a clear structure. Why the disparity between these two domains?One possibility is that the rehearsal-loop structure in verbal working memory is an inherent property of the auditory and vocal mechanisms in which speech is grounded. This could occur because of the relationship of these modalities to language in our evolutionary history or because auditory processing might lend itself to inforrna-

show abstract

Recall of order information by deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal order recall

Cited by 46 publications

References 42 publications

Cognitive performance of young and elderly subjects on the free word recall memory test: effect of presentation order on recall order

Cognitive performance of young and elderly subjects on the free word recall memory test: effect of presentation order on recall order

Short-term memory span: insights from sign language

A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About