Semantic-feature variability and the spacing effect

McFarland, Carl E.; Rhodes, Deborah D.; Frey, Trudy J.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90100-2

Cited by 23 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an alternative to the use of very long rehearsal intervals (e.g., the present study) to allow context change, context change might be induced by presenting an item two separate times during a list, with the same level of processing required on each presentation. Recall of an item is strongly affected by number of presentations in both the distractor recall paradigm (Rundus, 1977) and other incidental tasks (e.g., McFarland, Rhodes, & Frey, 1979;Nelson, 1977).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintenance rehearsal and long-term recency

Rundus

1980

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintenance (Type 1) rehearsal has been assumed to produce no increase in item recallability. Studies supporting this assumption have. however, tested limited ranges of the rehearsal time variable. The present study varied the time spent in Type 1 rehearsal over an extended range, and, with this added design sensitivity, recall was observed to be positively related to rehearsal duration. In addition, a pronounced long-term recency effect was observed. Both findings were interpreted as reflecting the role of contextual cues. An expanded description of the memorial product of Type 1 processing allows a preservation of the Type lIType 2 processing distinction and a reconciliation of the present and previous maintenance rehearsal data.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintenance rehearsal and long-term recency

Rundus

1980

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That the children who took part in post-event talk experienced the event on two spaced occasions (the event and the talk) is another potential reason for their superior correct recall relative to the children for whom the talk occurred during the event. Two spaced exposures, even in different modalities, may have provided an additional opportunity for the children to encode information, rendering their subsequent memory reports richer and more complete than those of the children who experienced the event only once (Bahrick, 2000;Dempster, 1996;McFarland, Rhodes, & Frey, 1979). This explanation by itself is not sufficient, however, because the children for whom talk was before the event also had two encoding opportunities (the talk and the event) but did not show a similar enhancement of their correct recall.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Time to Talk: The Influence of the Timing of Adult–Child Talk on Children's Event Memory

McGuigan¹,

Salmon²

2004

Child Development

135

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the influence of the nature and timing of adult-child talk on event recall, this study engaged 63 three-year-olds and 65 five-year-olds in a staged event and interviewed them 2 weeks later. Children were assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: elaborative pre-, during-, and post-talk, and empty talk (during the event). Children in the elaborative, relative to the empty, talk conditions made fewer errors. Furthermore, post-talk had the greatest influence on correct recall, although for the 5-year-olds, during-talk was also facilitative. Recall was enhanced to a greater extent by the child's contribution to the talk, relative to that of the adult. The findings contribute to an understanding of the mechanisms by which adult-child conversations influence recall.

show abstract

“…Next, consider encoding variability theories (e.g., Glenberg, 1979;Martin, 1972;McFarland, Rhodes, & Frey, 1979;Melton, 1970;Wells & Kirsner, 1974). The major thrust of encoding variability theories is that, as spacing increases, the two presentations are associated with increasingly different (externally and/or internally generated) contexts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spacing effect in 4- to 9-year-old children

Rea

Modigliani

1987

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiment 1 of the current research failed to replicate Toppino and DiGeorge's (1984) finding that older children but not preschoolers showed a spacing effect. Instead, we obtained the spacing effect in all the age groups tested (preschool, kindergarten, first-grade, and third-grade children). The effect was demonstrated with two types of material, words and pictures. Experiment 2 focused on the role that very brief spacings, with no intervening items between repetitions, play in later retention. Age groups and materials were the same as in Experiment 1. Four different levels of spacing were included (0-, 1.1-, 2.5-, and 5-sec intervals). The spacing effect was again obtained for all age groups with both words and pictures. The results of both experiments suggest that the spacing effect does not emerge with development.

show abstract

Semantic-feature variability and the spacing effect

Cited by 23 publications

References 16 publications

Maintenance rehearsal and long-term recency

Maintenance rehearsal and long-term recency

The Time to Talk: The Influence of the Timing of Adult–Child Talk on Children's Event Memory

The spacing effect in 4- to 9-year-old children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About