The Effects of Subsidiary Tasks on Memory Retrieval from Long and Short Lists

Okada, Ronald; Burrows, David

doi:10.1080/14640747808400671

Cited by 15 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The RT functions for the alphabetic distance judgment showed basically the same pattern except that the steep linear portion was reduced to a magnitude of about 4. Although these results are highly counterintuitive in that memory quantification seems to operate in a serial fashion for small values, but in a parallel fashion for large values, they are consistent with Burrows and Okada (1975), Okada and Burrows (1978), and Baddeley and Ecob (1973) findings. Jou and Aldridge (1999) concluded that there is no memory subitizing, unlike in the perceptual domain.…”

Section: The Magic Number Four: Can It Explain Sternberg's Serial Memsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…In these studies, the RT functions for MMS of 6 or smaller are typically characterized by steep linearity. But as the MMS exceeds 6, the functions become essentially flat (Baddeley & Ecob 1973;Burrows & Okada 1975;Okada & Burrows 1978) Those results were interpreted as suggesting that a serial access mode was in operation for small MSSs, but that a direct access mode is adopted when MSS exceeds 6. Jou (1998) used a fixed set version of the Sternberg task with MMSs varying from 1 to 20 and memory-set items randomly and repeatedly sampled from the 50 U.S. state names.…”

Section: The Magic Number Four: Can It Explain Sternberg's Serial Memmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity

Cowan¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Miller (1956) summarized evidence that people can remember about seven chunks in short-term memory (STM) tasks. However, that number was meant more as a rough estimate and a rhetorical device than as a real capacity limit. Others have since suggested that there is a more precise capacity limit, but that it is only three to five chunks. The present target article brings together a wide variety of data on capacity limits suggesting that the smaller capacity limit is real. Capacity limits will be useful in analyses of information processing only if the boundary conditions for observing them can be carefully described. Four basic conditions in which chunks can be identified and capacity limits can accordingly be observed are: (1) when information overload limits chunks to individual stimulus items, (2) when other steps are taken specifically to block the recoding of stimulus items into larger chunks, (3) in performance discontinuities caused by the capacity limit, and (4) in various indirect effects of the capacity limit. Under these conditions, rehearsal and long-term memory cannot be used to combine stimulus items into chunks of an unknown size; nor can storage mechanisms that are not capacity-limited, such as sensory memory, allow the capacity-limited storage mechanism to be refilled during recall. A single, central capacity limit averaging about four chunks is implicated along with other, noncapacity-limited sources. The pure STM capacity limit expressed in chunks is distinguished from compound STM limits obtained when the number of separately held chunks is unclear. Reasons why pure capacity estimates fall within a narrow range are discussed and a capacity limit for the focus of attention is proposed.

show abstract

Section: The Magic Number Four: Can It Explain Sternberg's Serial Memsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: The Magic Number Four: Can It Explain Sternberg's Serial Memmentioning

confidence: 98%

The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity

Cowan¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dual false-memory retrieval process mirrors the dual process in veridical-memory retrieval from short and long lists in the Sternberg task (Burrows & Okada, 1975;Corballis et al, 1980;Okada & Burrows, 1978) and in other memory tasks (Jou & Aldridge, 1999). Thus, there seems to be a dual-process of retrieval associated with sub-and supramemory spans for false memory as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…In a standard Sternberg paradigm, memory list length varies from 1 to 6 items, and the RT/MSS function obtained is linear. However, studies using MSSs beyond 6 indicated either a bilinear (Burrows & Okada, 1975;Okada & Burrows, 1978) or a logarithmic (Corballis, Katz, & Schwartz, 1980), rather than a linear, RT/MSS function. The bilinear RT functions showed a deflection point occurring at about MSS 7 separating an earlier steeper slope and a later shallower slope.…”

Section: Memory-span Limit and False Memorymentioning

confidence: 98%

The Effects of Increasing Semantic-Associate List Length on the Deese–Roediger–McDermott False Recognition Memory: Dual False-Memory Process in Retrieval from Sub- and Supraspan Lists

Jou

Arredondo

et al. 2017

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the number of semantic associates in Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) lists was varied from 4 to 14 in a modified Sternberg paradigm. The false alarm (FA) and correct rejection (CR) reaction time (RT)/memory-set size (MSS) functions of critical lures showed a cross-over interaction at approximately MSS 7, suggesting a reversal of the relative dominance between these two responses to the critical lure at this point and also indicating the location of the boundary between the sub- and supraspan MSS. For the subspan lists, FA to critical lures was slower than CR, suggesting a slow, strategic mechanism driving the false memory. Conversely, for the supraspan lists, critical lure FA was faster than its CR, suggesting a spontaneous mechanism driving the false memory. Results of two experiments showed that an automatic, fast, and a slow, controlled process could be error-prone or error-corrective, depending on the length of the DRM memory list. Thus there is a dual retrieval process in false memory as in true memory. The findings can be explained by both the activation/monitoring and the fuzzy-trace theories.

show abstract

“…There have been reports of absence of, or very weak, MSS effects (Diener, 1988(Diener, , 1990Stadler & Logan, 1989;Swanson, 1974), or linear, or logarithmic (bilinear, or quadratic, used interchangeably in this article) RT functions in Sternberg-type tasks across different studies or within the same studies depending on the materials or methods used. The suggested potential causes and the theoretical implications of these findings were numerous and varied and were lacking a consensus across the studies (Atkinson & Juola, 1973;Burrows & Okada, 1975;Corballis, Katz, & Schwartz, 1980;Juola, Taylor, & Young, 1974;Okada & Burrows, 1978;Simpson, 1972). The present study identified some methodological variables that reliably produced each of the above three types of MSS effects-that is, the linear, the null (or very weak), and the logarithmic (quadratic) RT functions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Task-switching cost and repetition priming: Two overlooked confounds in the fixed-set procedure of the Sternberg paradigm and how they affect memory set-size effects

Jou¹

2014

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects performed Sternberg-type memory recognition tasks (Sternberg paradigm) in four experiments. Category-instance names were used as learning and testing materials. Sternberg's original experiments demonstrated a linear relation between reaction time (RT) and memory-set size (MSS). A few later studies found no relation, and other studies found a nonlinear relation (logarithmic) between the two variables. These deviations were used as evidence undermining Sternberg's serial scan theory. This study identified two confounding variables in the fixed-set procedure of the paradigm (where multiple probes are presented at test for a learned memory set) that could generate a MSS RT function that was either flat or logarithmic rather than linearly increasing. These two confounding variables were task-switching cost and repetition priming. The former factor worked against smaller memory sets and in favour of larger sets whereas the latter factor worked in the opposite way. Results demonstrated that a null or a logarithmic RT-to-MSS relation could be the artefact of the combined effects of these two variables. The Sternberg paradigm has been used widely in memory research, and a thorough understanding of the subtle methodological pitfalls is crucial. It is suggested that a varied-set procedure (where only one probe is presented at test for a learned memory set) is a more contamination-free procedure for measuring the MSS effects, and that if a fixed-set procedure is used, it is worthwhile examining the RT function of the very first trials across the MSSs, which are presumably relatively free of contamination by the subsequent trials.

show abstract

The Effects of Subsidiary Tasks on Memory Retrieval from Long and Short Lists

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity

The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity

The Effects of Increasing Semantic-Associate List Length on the Deese–Roediger–McDermott False Recognition Memory: Dual False-Memory Process in Retrieval from Sub- and Supraspan Lists

Task-switching cost and repetition priming: Two overlooked confounds in the fixed-set procedure of the Sternberg paradigm and how they affect memory set-size effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About