Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span

Frick, Robert W.

doi:10.3758/bf03198313

Cited by 68 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using a sequential presentation, no large increases in recall have been found (Murdock & Carey, 1972;Murdock & Walker, 1969); the small increases that are found could be attributed to the fact that presenting stimuli in two modalities groups the stimuli, which improves recall (Ryan, 1969). Using a simultaneous presentation, recall can be increased (Frick, 1984). In a pilot experimentto that study, I tested both sequential and simultaneous visual presentations (of the to-be-remembered visual stimuli).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 93%

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Frick

1985

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments testing immediate ordered recall are presented; in these experiments, subjects engaged in repetitive speech ("articulatory suppression") during a visual presentation in order to prevent auditory recoding of the stimuli. In both experiments, a simultaneous presentation produced results that suggested the use of visual short-term memory, whereas a sequential presentation did not. In Experiment 1, visual confusion errors occurred more often than would be expected by chance for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. In Experiment 2, recall from visual short-term memory was expected to suffer more when subjects wrote a prefix than when they spoke a prefix; this effect occurred for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. These results suggest that existence of a visual shortterm store that retains a simultaneous presentation but not a sequential presentation.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 93%

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Frick

1985

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an extensive review, Penney (1989) considered research in which the presentation material was a mixture of the auditory and visual modalities and suggested that the effective capacity of working memory can be increased by using both visual and auditory channels. One of the most cited examples of modality effects in the literature is the superior recall for lists of items when they are presented in visual and auditory modalities rather than just in one modality (Frick, 1984). Many studies also show that attention can be better divided between the eye and ear than between two auditory or two visual channels (Wickens, 1984).…”

Section: Modality Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity.

Moreno

Mayer

1999

Journal of Educational Psychology

1,008

613

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students viewed a computer animation depicting the process of lightning. In Experiment 1, they concurrently viewed on-screen text presented near the animation or far from the animation, or concurrently listened to a narration. In Experiment 2, they concurrently viewed on-screen text or listened to a narration, viewed on-screen text following or preceding the animation, or listened to a narration following or preceding the animation. Learning was measured by retention, transfer, and matching tests. Experiment 1 revealed a spatial-contiguity effect in which students learned better when visual and verbal materials were physically close. Both experiments revealed a modality effect in which students learned better when verbal input was presented auditorily as speech rather than visually as text. The results support 2 cognitive principles of multimedia learning.Roxana Moreno created the multimedia materials used in Experiments 1 and 2.

show abstract

“…For example, Frick (1984) found that if people were presented visually with a set of items followed by a series of auditory items, recall was better than it was if both sets of items were presented in either the auditory or the visual mode. (The dual mode result was obtained only if participants were required to report the auditory items first.)…”

Section: Modality Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes.

Mousavi¹,

Low²,

Sweller³

1995

Journal of Educational Psychology

694

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports findings on the use of a partly auditory and partly visual mode of presentation for geometry worked examples. The logic was based on the split-attention effect and the effect of presentation modality on working memory. The split-attention effect occurs when students must split their attention between multiple sources of information, which results in a heavy cognitive load. Presentation-modality effects suggest that working memory has partially independent processors for handling visual and auditory material. Effective working memory may be increased by presenting material in a mixed rather than a unitary mode. If so, the negative consequences of split attention in geometry might be ameliorated by presenting geometry statements in auditory, rather than visual, form. The results of 6 experiments supported this hypothesis.In recent years, working memory limitations have been identified as a major factor that needs to be considered when instruction is designed. Researchers have used cognitive load theory (e.g., Sweller, 1988Sweller, , 1989Sweller, , 1993Sweller, , 1994 to suggest that many commonly used instructional procedures are inadequate because they require learners to engage in unnecessary cognitive activities that impose a heavy working memory load. Alternatives that reduce extraneous cognitive load have been devised. This research has been generated by the following assumptions concerning our basic cognitive architecture: (a) People have a very limited working memory that is able to hold and process only a few items of information at a time; (b) People have a huge long-term memory that is effectively unlimited in size; (c) Schema acquisition is a primary learning mechanism. Schemata are defined as cognitive constructs that permit people to categorize information in the manner in which it will be used (see Low & Over, 1990Low, Over, Doolan, & Michell, 1994;Sweller & Low, 1992 functions of storing information in long-term memory and of reducing working memory load by permitting people to treat multiple elements of information as a single element; (d) Automation of cognitive processes, including automatic use of schemata, is a learning mechanism that also reduces working memory load by effectively bypassing working memory. Automated information can be processed without conscious effort.A limited working memory is central to this architecture and central to cognitive load theory. Recent work has expanded researchers' knowledge of working memory characteristics and in turn, this work has the potential to expand the instructional techniques generated by cognitive load theory. In this article, we discuss the split-attention effect that previous research has suggested is a cognitive load phenomenon. The split-attention effect occurs when learners are required to divide their attention among and mentally integrate multiple sources of information. Mentally integrating multiple sources of information results in less effective acquisition of information than if learners are presented the same mater...

show abstract

Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span

Cited by 68 publications

References 35 publications

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity.

Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About