Response availability in free and modified free recall for two transfer paradigms

Keppel, Geoffrey; Postman, Leo; Zavortink, Bonnie

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80031-8

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the recall instructions it was emphasized that .Ss were to recall all of the response words and that half of the stimuli were provided "in case they might help." (A previous unreported experiment had demonstrated that the beneficial effects of stimulus cueing, reported by Keppel, Postman, & Zavortink, 1967, is specific, increasing the recall of the aided pairs and having no effect upon the unaided pairs. )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Influence of nonspecific interference on response recall.

Keppel

Henschel²,

Zavortink³

1969

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of studies assessing the influence of nonspecific interference upon response recall was performed. The general finding of Exp. I was that impressive amounts of retroactive inhibition (RI) may be produced when the interpolated learning consists of unrelated materials; this was true for responses in pairedassociate lists as well as responses learned by the method of free recall. In order to understand better the large amount of RI obtained with unrelated sets of paired associates (A-B, C-D transfer paradigm), this condition was compared with the A-B, A-D paradigm at three degrees of first-list learning in Exp. II. The second experiment revealed relatively small differences between the two paradigms at all degrees of learning. The final experiment indicated that the absence of first-list stimuli at recall was responsible for the failure to observe reliable differences between the two paradigms in Exp. II. The results are discussed in terms of two different interpretations of RI, viz., unlearning and response suppression.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Influence of nonspecific interference on response recall.

Keppel

Henschel²,

Zavortink³

1969

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent versions of this procedure, subjects must indicate which of their responses reflected source errors after each retrieval (e.g., Kahana, Dolan, Sauder, & Wingfield, 2005;Unsworth & Brewer, 2010). In our variant of EFR (which bears some similarity to modified-modified free recall procedures from the interference literature; e.g., Keppel, Postman, & Zavortink, 1967), subjects were instructed to recall from a target list, report all responses that came to mind while doing so, and indicate whether each response was correct (from the target list) or incorrect (not from the target list). After subjects completed the free recall task, we assessed WMC using three complex span tasks.…”

Section: The Present Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpolated retrieval effects on list isolation: Individual differences in working memory capacity

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the effects of interpolated retrieval from long-term memory (LTM) and short-term memory (STM) on list isolation in dual-list free recall and whether individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) moderated those effects. Ninetyseven subjects completed study-test trials that included two study lists separated by either an exemplar generation task (LTM retrieval) or a two-back task (STM retrieval). Subjects then completed an externalized free recall task that allowed for the examination of response accessibility and monitoring. Individual differences in WMC were assessed using three complex span tasks: operation span, reading span, and rotation span. Correct recall and intratrial intrusion summary scores showed no effect of interpolated retrieval on either response accessibility or monitoring. However, serial-position curves for correct recall of List 1 showed larger primacy in the two-back than in the exemplar generation task for high-WMC subjects. We interpreted these results from a context change perspective, as showing that interpolated LTM retrieval accelerated context change for subjects who processed the context more effectively. We consider the implications of these findings for models of memory.

show abstract

“…Also, FR scores for A-C and D-C should be highly similar. Keppel, Postman, and Zavortink (1967) have shown that response recall is generally higher on MMFR than on FR for control, A-C, and A-Br conditions, thus suggesting the importance of the presence of the stimulus terms at recall. A second explanation suggests an additional source of response unlearning for the A-C paradigm-the presence of firstlist stimuli during second-list learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Free and modified free recall measures of response recall and unlearning.

Delprato¹,

Garskof²

1969

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two tests were used to measure response recall in the A-B, A-C, the A-B, D-C (stimuli of both lists consisted of nonsense syllables), and the A-B, N-C (second-list stimuli constructed of numbers rather than nonsense syllables as in the first list) transfer paradigms and in a single-list control condition. Both recall tests required 5s to produce response terms from previously learned lists: one, free recall (FR), in the absence of stimulus terms; the other, modified-modified free recall (MMFR), in the presence of relevant stimulus terms. The type of measure of first-list response recall had a differential effect on the four conditions such that control, A-B, A-C, and A-B, N-C paradigms were influenced less by the type of recall test than the A-B, D-C paradigm, which showed significantly less response recall on FR than on MMFR. Results are discussed in terms of hypothetical sources of unlearning in the different paradigms.

show abstract

Response availability in free and modified free recall for two transfer paradigms

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Influence of nonspecific interference on response recall.

Influence of nonspecific interference on response recall.

Interpolated retrieval effects on list isolation: Individual differences in working memory capacity

Free and modified free recall measures of response recall and unlearning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About