Richer concepts are better remembered: number of features effects in free recall

Abstract

Many models of memory build in a term for encoding variability, the observation that there can be variability in the richness or extensiveness of processing at encoding, and that this variability has consequences for retrieval. In four experiments, we tested the expectation that encoding variability could be driven by the properties of the to-be-remembered item. Specifically, that concepts associated with more semantic features would be better remembered than concepts associated with fewer semantic features. Using feature listing norms we selected sets of items for which people tend to list higher numbers of features (high NoF) and items for which people tend to list lower numbers of features (low NoF). Results showed more accurate free recall for high NoF concepts than for low NoF concepts in expected memory tasks (Experiments 1–3) and also in an unexpected memory task (Experiment 4). This effect was not the result of associative chaining between study items (Experiment 3), and can be attributed to the amount of item-specific processing that occurs at study (Experiment 4). These results provide evidence that stimulus-specific differences in processing at encoding have consequences for explicit memory retrieval.

The encoding of word forms into memory may be challenging for college students with developmental language impairment

“…Even in the meaning-focused condition, semantic information was conveyed via a single photograph per target. Words with fewer semantic features tend to be harder to learn than words with richer meanings (Hargreaves et al, 2012). …”

“…Past work suggests that exposure to word forms alone before paring them with meanings can be advantageous to encoding (Swingley, 2007) as can training that requires learners to produce the to-be-learned word forms (Leach & Samuel, 2007). On the other hand, there is evidence that word-form encoding is sometimes better when those forms are paired with semantic referents rather than presented alone (Hawkins, Astle, & Rastle, 2015) or when they are linked to richer rather than sparser meanings (Hargreaves, Pexman, Johnson, & Zdrazilova, 2012). …”

Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: semantic richness effects in language processing

“…The typicality effects reported by Woollams (2012) support the claim that words' feature structure is important to semantic memory. Further, Recchia and Jones (2012); Yap et al (2012) show that words that generate more features in feature listing tasks produce faster naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization responses, Hargreaves et al (2012a) report that those words are also better remembered in free recall. Finally, there is evidence supporting embodied frameworks of semantic memory from studies reported by Esopenko et al (2012); McNorgan (2012).…”

Does richness lose its luster? Effects of extensive practice on semantic richness in visual word recognition

“…Previous studies have reported facilitatory effects of semantic richness on word recognition (e.g., Yap et al, 2012). These effects suggest that word meaning is an important contributor to lexical decision task (LDT) performance, but what are the effects of repeated LDT practice on these semantic contributions?…”