Advertisement

Set size and long-term memory/lexical effects in immediate serial recall: Testing the impurity principle

  • Ian Neath
  • Aimée M. Surprenant
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

The impurity principle (Surprenant & Neath, 2009b) states that because memory is fundamentally reconstructive, tasks and processes are not pure. This principle is based on a long line of research showing the effects of one memory system or process on another. Although the principle is widely accepted, many researchers appear hesitant to endorse it in extreme edge cases. One such case involves the effects of long-term memory and lexical factors when a small, closed set of items is used. According to this view, because the subject knows the set of items, there will be no effect of item information. In contrast, the impurity principle predicts that such effects can still be observed, because immediate serial recall with a small closed set of items is not a pure test of order information. Four experiments tested this edge case. In Experiments 1 and 2, we found concreteness effects when item uncertainty was minimized in both within-subjects (Exp. 1) and between-subjects (Exp. 2) designs. In Experiments 3 and 4, we found frequency effects when item uncertainty was minimized in both within-subjects (Exp. 3) and between-subjects (Exp. 4) designs. Analyses of intrusion and omission errors indicated that the sets of items had been learned. Analyses by experiment half also confirmed that the effects of concreteness and frequency were observable in the latter stages of the experiments, when there should have been even less doubt about the items. The results support the impurity principle and suggest that hesitation about accepting it in edge cases is unwarranted.

Keywords

Short term memory Set size effects Serial recall Working memory 

Notes

Author note

This research was supported, in part, by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to each author.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blankenship, A. B. (1938). Memory span: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–900.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A.B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Crowder, R. G. (1993). Systems and principles in memory theory: Another critique of pure memory. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory. (pp. 139–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Leipzig, Germany: Duncker & Humboldt.Google Scholar
  11. Hughes, R. W., Chamberland, C., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (2016). Perceptual–motor determinants of auditory–verbal serial short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 126–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes, R. W., Marsh, J. E., & Jones, D. M. (2009). Perceptual–gestural (mis)mapping in serial short-term memory: The impact of talker variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1411–1425.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs, J. (1887). Experiments on “prehension” Mind, 12, 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jalbert, A., Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2011). Does length or neighborhood size cause the word length effect? Memory & Cognition, 39, 1198–1210.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0094-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, D. M., & Macken, B. (2018). In the beginning was the deed: Verbal short-term memory as object-oriented action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 351–356.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418765796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, G. V. (1988). Images, predicates, and retrieval cues. In M. Denis, J. Englekamp, & J. T. E. Richardson (Eds.), Cognitive and neuropsychological approaches to mental imagery (pp. 89–98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L. III. (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 425–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90282-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin, Y., Chen, H., Lai, Y. C., & Wu, D. H. (2015). Phonological similarity and orthographic similarity affect probed serial recall of Chinese characters. Memory & Cognition, 43, 538–554.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0495-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marschark, M., & Hunt, R. R. (1989). A reexamination of the role of imagery in learning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 710–720.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.710 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Medler, D. A., & Binder, J. R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. Madison, WI: Medical College of Wisconsin, Language Imaging Laboratory. Retrieved from www.neuro.mcw.edu/mcword/ Google Scholar
  22. Monnier, C., & Syssau, A. (2008). Semantic contribution to verbal short-term memory: Are pleasant words easier to remember than neutral words in serial recall and serial recognition? Memory & Cognition, 36, 35–42.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morin, C., Poirier, M., Fortin, C., & Hulme, C. (2006). Word frequency and the mixed-list paradox in immediate and delayed serial recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 724–729.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nairne, J. S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition, 18, 251–269.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neath, I. (1997). Modality, concreteness, and set-size effects in a free reconstruction of order task. Memory & Cognition, 25, 256–263.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  27. Osth, A. F., & Dennis, S. (2015). The fill-in effect in serial recall can be obscured by omission errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1447–1455.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quinlan, P. T., Roodenrys, S., & Miller, L. M. (2017). Serial reconstruction of order and serial recall in verbal short-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 45, 1126–1143.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0719-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Restle, F. (1974). Critique of pure memory. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories of cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 203–217). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Lethbridge, A., Hinton, M., & Nimmo, L. M. (2002). Word-frequency and phonological-neighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1019–1034.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.6.1019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Roodenrys, S., & Quinlan, P. T. (2000). The effects of stimulus set size and word frequency on verbal serial recall. Memory, 8, 71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/096582100387623 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruiz-Vargas, J. M., Cuevas, I., & Marschark, M. (1996). The effects of concreteness on memory: Dual codes or dual processing? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 45–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095414496383202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saint-Aubin, J., Ouellette, D., & Poirier, M. (2005). Semantic similarity and immediate serial recall: Is there an effect on all trials? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 171–177.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saint-Aubin, J., & Poirier, M. (2005). Word frequency effects in immediate serial recall: Item familiarity and item co-occurrence have the same effect. Memory, 13, 325–332.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000369 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwanenflugel, P. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Storkel, H. L. (2004). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1454–1468.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/108) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Stuart, G., & Hulme, C. (2000). The effects of word co-occurrence on short-term memory: Associative links in long-term memory affect short-term memory performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 796–802.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.796 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Surprenant, A. M., & Neath, I. (2009a). The 9 lives of short-term memory. In A. Thorn & M. Page (Eds.), Interactions between short-term and long-term memory in the verbal domain (pp. 16–43). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Surprenant, A. M., & Neath, I. (2009b). Principles of memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  41. Walker, I., & Hulme, C. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2, 1256–1271.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.5.1256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yuille, J. C., & Paivio, A. (1968). Imagery and verbal mediation instructions in paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 436–441.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations