Sequential dependencies in recall of sequences: Filling in the blanks

Abstract

Sequential dependencies can provide valuable information about the processes supporting memory, particularly memory for serial order. Earlier analyses have suggested that anticipation errors-reporting items ahead of their correct position in the sequence-tend to be followed by recall of the displaced item, consistent with primacy gradient models of serial recall. However, a more recent analysis instead suggests that anticipation errors are followed by further anticipation errors, consistent with chaining models. We report analyses of 21 conditions from published serial recall data sets, in which we observed a systematic pattern whereby anticipations tended to be followed by the "filling in" of displaced items. We note that cases where a different pattern held tended to apply to recall of longer lists under serial learning conditions or to conditions where participants were free to skip over items. Although the different patterns that can be observed might imply a dissociation (e.g., between short-and long-term memory), we show that these different patterns are naturally predicted by Farrell's (Psychological Review 119:223-271, 2012) model of short-term and episodic memory and relate to whether or not spontaneously formed groups of items can be skipped over during recall.

A test of interference versus decay in working memory: Varying distraction within lists in a complex span task

“…This turns out to be a consequence of sequential dependencies in the model, particularly a phenomenon called "fill-in" (e.g., Farrell, Hurlstone, & Lewandowksy, 2013;Henson, 1998b). The presentation of a dense distractor burst means that the item at that position is less strongly associated with its correct positional tag at recall.…”

The psychology of intelligence analysis: Drivers of prediction accuracy in world politics.

“…We used our simulation of Klein et al's (2005) experiment to assess the model's ability to capture two characteristics of immediate serial recall documented much later by Farrell, Hurlstone, and Lewandowsky (2013). Figure 18 shows the simulated recall probability as a function of the lag between successive responses, when conditioned on the first-order error.…”

“…We know of no other model that can capture both effects. Farrell et al (2013) have documented a second characteristic of serial recall. They examined sequential dependencies during serial report across 13 studies.…”

A comparison of serial order short-term memory effects across verbal and musical domains

“…This U-shaped response curve has also been observed for recall accuracy of lists of visuospatial memoranda, such as faces, spatial locations or visual configurations (Avons, 1998;Guérard & Tremblay, 2008;Jones et al, 1995;Smyth, Hay, Hitch, & Horton, 2005). There is also a close resemblance of serial order error patterns in verbal and visuospatial STM tasks: In both domains, errors are characterized by transposition gradients governed by a locality constraint (e.g., Henson, 1996;Parmentier, Andrés, Elford, & Jones, 2006;Parmentier, King, & Dennis, 2006;Smyth et al, 2005), and by more fill-in than infill errors (Farrell et al, 2013;Guérard & Tremblay, 2008;Henson, 1996;Surprenant et al, 2005). Finally, the effect of temporal grouping (see, e.g., Hartley, Hurlstone, & Hitch, 2016;Ryan, 1969) has also been observed in both verbal and visuospatial domains (Hurlstone & Hitch, 2015;Parmentier, Andrés, et al, 2006;Parmentier, Maybery, & Jones, 2004).…”

“…Concerning serial order errors, they are governed by a locality constraint (Henson, 1996), characterized by an increased proportion of transposition errors for close serial positions. Furthermore, ordering errors are characterized by the presence of approximately 2 times more fill-in than infill transpositions (see Farrell, Hurlstone, & Lewandowsky, 2013;Henson, 1996;Surprenant, Kelley, Farley, & Neath, 2005); when an item is recalled one position too soon in a sequence, that is, at position i-1, the following item is more likely to be the item actually presented at position i-1 (fill-in transposition) than the next item in the sequence (infill transposition).…”