The Occurrence of Clustering in the Recall of Randomly Arranged Words of Different Frequencies-Of-Usage

Bousfield, W. A.; Cohen, Burton H.

doi:10.1080/00221309.1955.9918346

Cited by 78 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The context Input need only bias the module to resolve which member of the category to retrieve. The fact that words from a given category are clustered In free recall (Bousfield, 1953; Bousfleld & Cohen, 1955;1956) suggests that multiple words benefit from the same retrieval cue, or that they reside in the same module. Humans can quickly associate a few exemplars to a numb;: of categories with little evidence of interference (Mandler, 1967).…”

Section: Insert Figure 8 About Herementioning

confidence: 99%

A Connectionist/Control Architecture for Working Memory

Schneider

Detweiler

1988

Psychology of Learning and Motivation

191

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Insert Figure 8 About Herementioning

confidence: 99%

A Connectionist/Control Architecture for Working Memory

Schneider

Detweiler

1988

Psychology of Learning and Motivation

191

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our earlier studies (1,2) have established positive functional relationships between the extent of clustering and the following two variables: (a) number of reinforcements of the stimulus-word-list; (b) frequenciesof-usage of stimulus-words based on the Thorndike-Lorge (5) tables. These studies have also shown that the clustering tendency varies in a systematic way throughout the course of recall.…”

Section: Clustering In Recall As a Function Of The Number Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clustering in Recall as a Function of the Number of Word-Categories in Stimulus-Word Lists

Bousfield

Cohen

1956

The Journal of General Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…High-frequency words lead to better recall than do low-frequency words when these item types are presented in pure lists (e.g., Bousfield & Cohen, 1955;Deese, 1960;DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996;Shepard, 1967).When high-and low-frequency words are presented in the same (mixed) study list, the word frequency effect in recall is typically eliminated or even reversed (e.g., DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996;Gregg, 1976;Gregg, Montgomery, & Castano, 1980;MacLeod & Kampe, 1996;May & Tryk, 1970;cf. Watkins, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several results are consistent with this view. First, in comparison with low-frequency words, high-frequency words produce more category clustering in recall protocols (e.g., Bousfield & Cohen, 1955), a standard index of organizational processing at encoding (e.g., Hunt & Einstein, 1981). Second, meaning-based associations are more easily produced in lists of high-frequency items (e.g., Sumby, 1963;Tulving & Patkau, 1962), enhancing later recall.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Word frequency and memory: Effects on absolute versus relative order memory and on item memory versus order memory

Mulligan

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary reason that memory researchers are interested in word frequency is that it produces opposite effects on recognition and recall. Low-frequency words produce better recognition memory, whereas high-frequency words produce superior recall (at least in pure-list designs, as discussed below) (see, e.g., Shepard, 1967; and see Gregg, 1976, for an early review). These results have informed debates about the relationship between recall and recognition, and they are traditionally interpreted as strong evidence against single-process models of recognition and recall (e.g., Crowder, 1976;Murdock, 1974). Word frequency effects are also important to theoretical models of recognition memory, such as dual-process models (e.g., Chalmers & Humphreys, 1998;Gardiner & Java, 1990;Guttentag & Carroll, 1997;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Mandler, 1980), as well as to attempts to delineate empirical regularities in recognition memory, such as the mirror effect (e.g., Glanzer, Adams, Iverson, & Kim, 1993;Greene, 1996;Maddox & Estes, 1997;Wixted, 1992).A traditional account of the word frequency effect in recall is that high-frequency words lend themselves to more organizationaland interitem associative processing (Gregg, 1976;Schulman, 1976;Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1982), types of encoding that are especially useful in recall but that have little impact on recognition (e.g., Hunt & McDaniel, 1993;Kintsch, 1977). Several results are consistent with this view. First, in comparison with low-frequency words, high-frequency words produce more category clustering in recall protocols (e.g., Bousfield & Cohen, 1955), a standard index of organizational processing at encoding (e.g., Hunt & Einstein, 1981). Second, meaning-based associations are more easily produced in lists of high-frequency items (e.g., Sumby, 1963;Tulving & Patkau, 1962), enhancing later recall. Third, the index of interitem associative strengths, which is predictive of recall, is greater with high-than with low-frequency lists (Deese, 1960) (see Gregg, 1976, for additional evidence for the importance of organizational and associative bases of the word frequency effect in recall). Finally, and most important for the present purposes, high-frequency words produce greater order memory, as measured by the order reconstruction task (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). Under the standard assumption that this and other tests of absolute order are based on interitem associations (Greene, Thapar, & Westerman, 1998; Hunt & McDaniel,1993;McDaniel, DeLosh, & Merritt, 2000; see also Li & Lewandowsky, 1993), these results imply that high-frequency words lead to more interitem associative encoding than do low-frequency words.This traditional view is expanded in the order-encoding hypothesis proposed by DeLosh and McDaniel (1996). This hypothesis proposes that word frequency produces an encoding tradeoff between information about the item itself and information about the order in which items occur. According to this view, the unusual nature of low-frequency words focuses processing resources on item ch...

show abstract

The Occurrence of Clustering in the Recall of Randomly Arranged Words of Different Frequencies-Of-Usage

Cited by 78 publications

References 1 publication

A Connectionist/Control Architecture for Working Memory

A Connectionist/Control Architecture for Working Memory

Clustering in Recall as a Function of the Number of Word-Categories in Stimulus-Word Lists

Word frequency and memory: Effects on absolute versus relative order memory and on item memory versus order memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About