Advertisement

Mechanisms of output interference in cued recall

  • Jack H. WilsonEmail author
  • David Kellen
  • Amy H. CrissEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

The primary aim of this paper is to elucidate the mechanisms governing output interference in cued recall. Output interference describes the phenomenon where accuracy decrease over the course of an episodic memory test. Output inference in cued recall takes the form of a decrease in correct and intrusion responses and an increase in failures to response across the test. This pattern can only be accounted for by a model with two complementary mechanisms: learning during retrieval and a response filter that prevents repeated recall of the same item. We investigate how a retrieval filter might operate by manipulating the similarity of words. The data are consistent with a retrieval filter that does not operate by a global match of a potential target to previously recalled items. Results are discussed within the search of associative memory theory.

Keywords

Cued recall Output interference Memory models Memory Recall 

Notes

Author note

This paper was originally to be part of the special issue commemorating the 50th anniversary of Atkinson and Shiffrin, edited by K. Malmberg, J. G. W. Raaijmakers, and R. M. Shiffrin, but was not included due to technical issues. This work was partially supported by National Science Foundation (095612). We would like to thank Kate Lanza and Ilhana Mehanovic for their role in data collection. Data are available for download (https://osf.io/bwvqe/).

Open practices statement None of the reported experiments were pre-registered. Data are available for download at <https://osf.io/bwvqe/>

References

  1. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 2, 89–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3 Google Scholar
  2. Aue, W. R., Criss, A. H., & Prince, M. A. (2015). Dynamic memory searches: Selective output interference for the memory of facts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1798–1806.Google Scholar
  3. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1–46.Google Scholar
  4. Cox, G. E., Hemmer, P., Aue, W. R., & Criss, A. H. (2018). Information and processes underlying semantic and episodic memory across tasks, items, and individuals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(4), 545–590.Google Scholar
  5. Criss, A. H., Aue, W. R., & Smith, L. (2011). The effects of word frequency and context variability in cued recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 119–132.Google Scholar
  6. Criss, A. H., Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2011). Output interference in recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 316–326.Google Scholar
  7. Criss, A. H., Salomão, C., Malmberg, K. J., Aue, W. R., & Claridge, M. (2018). Release from output interference in recognition memory: A test of the attention hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1081–1089.Google Scholar
  8. Davis-Stober, C. P. (2009). Analysis of multinomial models under inequality constraints: Applications to measurement theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Estes, W. K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological Bulletin, 53(2), 134–140.Google Scholar
  10. Fawcett, J. M. (2013). The production effect benefits performance in between-subject designs: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  11. Forrin, N. D., MacLeod, C. M., & Ozubko, J. (2012). Widening the boundaries of the production effect. Memory & Cognition, 40(7), 1049–1055.Google Scholar
  12. Gardiner, J. M., Craik, F. I. M., & Birtwistle, J. (1972). Retrieval cues and release from proactive inhibition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 778–783.Google Scholar
  13. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., Dunson, D., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. (2014). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hacker, M. J. (1980). Speed and accuracy of recency judgements for evens in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(6), 651–675.Google Scholar
  15. Hockley, W. E., & Cristi, C. (1996a). Tests of encoding tradeoffs between item and associative information. Memory & Cognition, 24(2), 202–216.Google Scholar
  16. Hockley, W. E., & Cristi, C. (1996b). Tests of the separate retrieval of item and associative information using a frequency-judgement task. Memory & Cognition, 24(6), 796–811.Google Scholar
  17. Humphreys, M. S., Pike, R., Bain, J. D., & Tehan, G. (1989). Global matching: A comparison of the SAM, Minerva II, Matrix, and TODAM models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 36–67.Google Scholar
  18. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795.Google Scholar
  19. Kılıç, A., Criss, A. H., Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2017). Models that allow us to percieve the world more accurately also allow us to remember past events more accurately via differentiation. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 65–86.Google Scholar
  20. Klugkist, I., Kato, B., & Hoijtink, H. (2005). Bayesian model selection using encompassing priors. Statistica Neerlandica, 59(1), 57–69.Google Scholar
  21. Koop, G., Criss, A. H., & Malmberg, K. J. (2015). The role of mnemonic processes in pure-target and pure-foil recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 509–516.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Press.Google Scholar
  23. MacLeod, C. M., Nigel, G., Hourihan, K., Neary, K., & Ozubko, J. (2010). The production effect: Deliniation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 671–685.Google Scholar
  24. Malmberg, K. J., Criss, A. H., Gangwani, T., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2012). Overcoming the negative consequences of interference that results from recognition memory testing. Psychological Science, 23, 115–119.Google Scholar
  25. Murdock, B. B., & Anderson, R. E. (1975). Encoding, storage, and retrieval of item information. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 145–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Murdock, B. B., & Okada, R. (1970). Interresponse times in single-trial free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86(2), 263–267.Google Scholar
  27. O’Neill, M. E., Sutcliffe, J. A., & Tulving, E. (1976). Retrieval cues and release from proactive inhibition. American Journal of Psychology, 89(3), 535–543.Google Scholar
  28. Patterson, K. E., Meltzer, R. H., & Mandler, G. (1971). Inter-response times in categorized free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 417–426.Google Scholar
  29. Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1980). SAM: A theory of probabilistic search of associative memory. In G. H Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 14, pp. 207–261). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981a). Order effects in recall. Attention and Performance, 9, 403–415.Google Scholar
  31. Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981b). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88(2), 93–134.Google Scholar
  32. Regenwetter, M., & Robinson, M. M. (2017). The construct-behavior gap in behavioral decision research: A challenge beyond replicability. Psychological Review, 124(5), 533–550.Google Scholar
  33. Roediger, H. L. (1973). Inhibition in recall from cueing with recall targets. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 644–657.Google Scholar
  34. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.Google Scholar
  35. Roediger, H. L., & Schmidt, S. R. (1980). Output interference in the recall of categorized and paired-associate lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(1), 91–105.Google Scholar
  36. Rohrer, D., & Wixted, J. T. (1994). An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 22(5), 511–524.Google Scholar
  37. Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM–retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 145–166.Google Scholar
  38. Silvapulle, M. J., & Sen, P. K. (2011). Constrained statistical inference: Inequality, order, and shape restrictions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, A. D. (1971). Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 400–408.Google Scholar
  40. Tulving, E., & Arbuckle, T. Y. (1963). Sources of intertrial interference in immediate recall of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 321–334.Google Scholar
  41. Tulving, E., & Arbuckle, T. Y. (1966). Input and output interference in short-term associative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 145–150.Google Scholar
  42. Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335.Google Scholar
  43. Wickens, D. D., Born, D. G., & Allen, C. K. (1963). Proactive inhibition and item similarity in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 440–445.Google Scholar
  44. Wilson, J. H., & Criss, A. H. (2017). The list strength effect in cued recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 78–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations