Redundancy and immediate recall: Prefix and midfix effects.

Jahnke, John C.; Nowaczyk, Ronald H.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.1.5.549

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is to say, second response errors may be a manifestation of the processing limitation of the memory system in which the retrieval and emission of the first response add to an already burdened memory system and forgetting occurs as a consequence. In human memory studies (Jahnke, 1975 ;Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1975), the retrieval and emission of a response prefix (a redundant element such as the word zero) between the presentation and recall of a series of digits leads to poorer recall of the series than when no prefix is required. Also, Grant and Roberts (1976) proposed a model of DMTS performance that incorporates the notions of rehearsal and interference with rehearsal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus similarity and order as factors in visual short-term memory in nonhuman primates.

Devine¹,

Burke²,

Rohack³

1979

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The short-term retention of nonhuman primates for a single sample or for two successively presented samples was assessed in four delayed matching-to-sample experiments with delays of .03, 4, 8, 16, and 32 sec. The single sample tasks included one (Experiment 1) or two (Experiment 4) distractor stimuli in the choice set (matching test). In the two successive samples tasks, the animals matched (reconstructed) the order of presentation of two samples with (Experiment 3) and without (Experiment 2) a distractor stimulus. Also, the possible combinations of eight stimuli (four colors and four shapes) were arranged to test the effects of sample set and choice set similarity. Taken together, analyses of the errors indicated that both sample and choice set similarity were significant sources of confusions in delayed matching. Order errors occurred independently of similarity but were a source of forgetting primarily at the longest delays (16 and 32 sec). Two exceptions to the similarity effect (second response errors in Experiment 3 and errors of an inexperienced group in Experiment 4) were observed. Possible reasons for the exceptions and several implications of these findings for theories of short-term memory are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus similarity and order as factors in visual short-term memory in nonhuman primates.

Devine¹,

Burke²,

Rohack³

1979

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other interpretations of the response prefix, such as the interruption of a consolidation process (Conrad, 1960) and interserial similarity based on the fact that all series are prefixed by the same element (Crowder & Hoenig, 1969) have been rejected. So has an interpretation that the redundant element adds the same amount to the overall memory load, regardless of when the response prefix is emitted (Crowder, 1967, Experiment 3;Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1975). The remaining extant interpretation, still viable, is that the response-prefix effect is a retroactive interference effect: In the first place, the prefix is interpolated between learning and recall of the memory series and, as such, is in accord with the paradigm for retroactive interference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, a redundant element whose retrieval is deferred until after the recall of the memory series has been completed (a response suffix) should not interfere at all (cf. Crowder, 1967), and a response prefix whose retrieval is required after some, but not all, of the memory series has been output (a response "midfix") should have less effect than the customary prefix (Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1975).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus and response prefixes interfere differentially with short-term recall.

Jahnke¹

1975

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiment contrasted the effects of one and three redundant elements on recall, when the elements prefixed either the stimulus or the response. Recall was the same when a single redundant element was included in the presentation of the stimulus and when it was required in response. Relative to this level, recall improved slightly when three redundant elements were included in the stimulus and was degraded significantly when the three were required in response. These results were taken to indicate that both stimulus and response prefixes contribute to the load on memory, but that the mechanisms whereby this occurs are different. The relations of the stimulus and response prefix to the stimulus and response suffix were also considered.

show abstract

“…In spite of these and other efforts (e.g., Crowder, 1969;Dallett, 1964;Shumaker, 1971), it is fair to say that the response-prefix effect has received relatively little attention and that the effect has not been successfully articulated with any existing theory of memory. Recently, however, the view has been advanced that the response-prefix effect is a manifestation of the processing limitations inherent in an active memory system (Jahnke, 1975;Jahnke & Nowaczyk, 1975). The retrieval and emission of the response prefix are presumed to add to an already burdened memory system, and forgetting occurs as a consequence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%