Temporal contrast and the word frequency effect.

Abstract

The word frequency effect was studied in recall and recognition under three list structures, (a) homogeneous rare or common nouns, (b) mixed alternating frequencies, and (c) mixed blocked frequencies. The major rinding in Experiment I was that the number of frequency contrasts within a list had a clear effect on recall and little effect on recognition. Recall of rare items was poor in a homogeneous list, equal to common items in a blocked list, and better than common items when in a list of alternating frequencies. Experiment n examined the reversed frequency effect of the alternating list under overt and covert rehearsal conditions across three trials. Under overt rehearsal there was no significant difference in number of rehearsals of rare and common items. The superior recall of rare items present on Trial 1 decreased across trials supporting a stimulus change-contrast interpretation of the effect of mixed frequency items in free recall.

The mixed truth about frequency effects on free recall: Effects of study list composition

“…A 2 (high vs. low frequency) 4 (condition) within-subjects ANOVA was conducted on the data. No main effect was found for condition [F(3,63) The finding that high-frequency words are better recalled when high-and low-frequency words are blocked agrees with past research (e.g., May et al, 1979). Inter- In the alternating condition, association by contiguity would predict a high rate of between-frequency recalls.…”

Event-frequency judgments as a function of the linguistic frequency and single or paired presentation of target words: II Task requiring judgment of linguistic frequency

“…Perhaps because associating 10LF words with hiLF words in the pairing operation led to an enhancement in their frequency estimates, as it seemed to do in the present experiment for the highest EF level. Such an effect is entirely consistent with the earlier reports of superior recall of words low in linguistic frequency when they were mixed with high-frequency words (Duncan, 1974;May & Tryk, 1970) but not when they were presented in the usual homogeneous list (May, Cuddy, & Norton, 1979).…”

Event-frequency judgments as a function of the linguistic frequency and single or paired presentation of target words: I. Task with unique multiple traces

“…However, 10LF words were better recalled than more common words when the two types of words were presented in mixed lists (Duncan, 1974;May & Tryk, 1970). This result was replicated by May, Cuddy, and Norton (1979), whose 10LF words were more poorly recalled after homogeneous presentation, equally well recalled after blocked presentation, and better recalled than common words after alternating presentation.…”

“…However, 10LF words were better recalled than more common words when the two types of words were presented in mixed lists (Duncan, 1974;May & Tryk, 1970). This result was replicated by May, Cuddy, and Norton (1979), whose 10LF words were more poorly recalled after homogeneous presentation, equally well recalled after blocked presentation, and better recalled than common words after alternating presentation.This study was designed to explore the effects of contrasting presentation of words of high and low LF on the EF measure. Superior EF judgments for 10LF words in mixed pairs would be expected if such linguistic contrast has the same effects that have been shown for word recall , on the assumption that the retrieval of the multiple memory traces would be improved.…”