Abstract
Models of short-term memory for sequential information rely on item-level, feature-based descriptions to account for errors in serial recall. Transposition errors within alternating similar/dissimilar letter sequences derive from interactions between overlapping features. However, in two experiments, we demonstrated that the characteristics of the sequence are what determine the fates of items, rather than the properties ascribed to the items themselves. Performance in alternating sequences is determined by the way that the sequences themselves induce particular prosodic rehearsal patterns, and not by the nature of the items per se. In a serial recall task, the shapes of the canonical “saw-tooth” serial position curves and transposition error probabilities at successive input–output distances were modulated by subvocal rehearsal strategies, despite all item-based parameters being held constant. We replicated this finding using nonalternating lists, thus demonstrating that transpositions are substantially influenced by prosodic features—such as stress—that emerge during subvocal rehearsal.
Highlights
Models of short-term memory for sequential information rely on item-level, feature-based descriptions to account for errors in serial recall
We proposed an alternative account of the typical patterns of transposition errors and serial recall curves found within alternating similar/ dissimilar sequences
In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that during serial recall of alternating lists of similar and dissimilar items, performance levels and transposition patterns could be modulated by guiding articulatory grouping via an explicit rehearsal strategy
Summary
Models of short-term memory for sequential information rely on item-level, feature-based descriptions to account for errors in serial recall. The hegemony of the item and its phonological constituents is made explicit in a wide range of modeling approaches that have been applied to the broader analysis of vSTM (e.g., Brown, Preece, & Hulme, 2000; Burgess & Hitch, 1999; Farrell & Lewandowsky, 2002; Henson, 1998; Nairne, 1990; Page & Norris, 1998) One consequence of this item-based view is that the roles of perceptual and effector components—those most directly implicated in the organization and implementation of temporally extended sequences—are accorded subordinate, sometimes epiphenomenal status, so as to be regarded as being peripheral to the core “cognitive” activity, so that their impact is restricted to processes either preceding or following, but emphatically partitioned from, the modular processing primitive that is the memory system
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
