Recognition of the stimulus suffix

Abstract

Recall of the final items in a spoken list is hindered by the presentation of a to-be-ignored item. The magnitude of this interference (the stimulus suffix effect) is reduced if the suffix is perceptually distinct from the other list items. Several experiments examine this effect of perceptual distinctiveness. The experiments involve later recognition of stimulus suffixes from lists presented for serial recall. Suffixes which differ from the list items tend to be recognized at least as well as list-similar sufftxes. This supports the view that reduction of the suffix effect can be traced to decreased interitem interference in memory rather than to attentional selection.

Two-component theory of the suffix effect: Contrary evidence

“…Of particular interest is that the difference in the recall and hundred suffix effects was greater at the terminal position (.14) than at the preterminal positions (.05). An ANOVA for just the recall and hundred data showed that the difference between these suffix effects, as expressed in the suffix position interaction, was unlikely to have arisen by chance [F (1,23) 7.01, MS e 0.008, p .01]. This interaction needs to be interpreted with caution, however, since the proportional decrement in the suffix effect obtained with the hundred suffix rounded to 36% at both the preterminal and the terminal positions (see Figure 1).…”

“…The 3 (suffix condition) 2 (position) analysis revealed the following: For the main effect of suffix condition, F(2,46) 70.49, MS e 0.015, p .000, and for the main effect of position, F (1,23) …”

“…The 2 (suffix) 2 (position) analysis of the data for just the hundred and recall suffix data revealed the following: For the main effect of suffix condition, F (1,23) …”

“…Finally, relative to the through-list hundred condition, the attenuation of the suffix effect in the hundred condition was slightly less pronounced at the terminal position (.02) than at the preterminal positions (.04). An ANOVA for just the through-list hundred and the hundred data showed that this difference, as expressed in the suffix position interaction, could easily have arisen by chance [F (1,23) 0.67, MS e 0.005, p .42].…”

“…Second, relative to the recall condition, the attenuation of the suffix effect in the through-list hundred condition was more pronounced at the terminal position (.10) than at the preterminal positions ( .04). An ANOVA for just the recall and the through-list hundred data showed that this difference, as expressed in the suffix position interaction, was also unlikely to have arisen by chance [F (1,23) 24.17, MS e 0.006, p .000]. Finally, relative to the through-list hundred condition, the attenuation of the suffix effect in the hundred condition was slightly less pronounced at the terminal position (.02) than at the preterminal positions (.04).…”