Free Recall Paradigm Research Articles

The effect of sign language grammatical structure on recall

The nature of grammatical structure in American Sign Language (ASL) was investigated using a short-term free-recall paradigm. Grammatical signed sentences and random strings of ASL signs were visually presented to 60 deaf ASL users. Either a nonsense sign or a finger-spelled consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) was embedded in each string. The number of nonsense items recalled and the total number of signs recalled were significantly greater for grammatical strings than for random strings. The results extend previous findings and suggest that, as in speech, grammatical structure is actively utilized in the processing of ASL, serving to increase the efficiency of such processing.

Learning from tests: Effects of spacing

The effects of delaying an immediate test, a rehearsal opportunity, or a second presentation on long-term free recall were investigated in an experiment combining features of the Brown-Peterson and free-recall paradigms. Each trial consisted of: (a) initial presentation of a word double (P1); (b) 4, 8, or 14 seconds on a digit shadowing task; (c) either a second presentation of the word-pair (P2), an overt recall test of that pair (T), or an opportunity to covertly rehearse the pair (R); and (d) 13, 9, or 3 seconds of shadowing. A free-recall test was given after each block of 12 trials. The end-of-block recall increased as a function of the second event delay for P1-P2 and P1-T conditions but not for P1-R conditions. A proposed model assumes that both repetitions and tests promote learning and that the effectiveness of both is a function of the current state of memory at the time of the repetition or test.

Item-Specific Interference and List Discrimination in Free Recall

Summary In two retroactive inhibition experiments (N = 112, N = 72, respectively) using the free-recall paradigm, memorized two successive lists of nouns and completed a retention test in which they recalled either the first or both lists. Ss who during learning trials used the same retrieval strategy on the first and second lists remembered less of the first list than Ss who used different strategies on both lists. Ss who recalled both lists on the retention test recalled less of the first list than those who recalled only the first list. Discussed were implications for current hypotheses about interference.

Behavioral and Metamnemonic Indicators of Strategic Behaviors under Remember Instructions in First Grade

SALATAS, HARRIET, and FLAVELL, JOHN H. Behavioral and Metamnemonic Indicators of Strategic Behaviors under Remember Instructions in First Grade. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1976, 47, 81-89. The distinction between perceiving and memorizing was investigated with first graders, using a free-recall paradigm. The use of strategic behaviors (looking more during study and categorizing during study) in response to remember instructions versus look instructions was examined. In addition, subjects were given repeated trials to assess the effects of practice, metamemory questions after the free-recall trials to assess the relationship between behavior and knowledge, and a retest 6 weeks later to determine which measures, behavioral or metamnemonic, would predict subsequent categorization. The remember subjects showed spontaneous categorization and subsequent superior recall, while looking time did not differ in the 2 instruction groups. Practice effects included increased recall over trials and a stable positive relationship between looking time and recall after trial 1. Correct answers on the metamemory questions about the facilitative effect of category grouping were frequent, but unrelated to previous categorization on the free-recall trials. Categorization increased on the retest and showed a significant positive relationship only to recall clustering 6 weeks earlier. Metamemory did not predict subsequent categorization.

Proactive inhibition in short-term retention

A model of Estes which describes retroactive inhibition effects was adapted to the process of proactive inhibition in short-term retention. Results obtained by Reutener (1972) with the single-item free recall paradigm could be adequately described with the proposed model.

Comparable ratio indices of sequential consistency and subjective clustering in multitrial free recall

Structurally comparable indices of clustering and sequential consistency are described. The former is the ratio index of subjective clustering, and the latter is the ratio index of repetition. Both indices are applicable to the same set of multitrial free-recall protocols, and it is suggested that they may be helpful in clarifying issues arising from contradictory results obtained in studies employing different free-recall paradigms. Correlational limitations of the indices are discussed.

Positive recency effect in a delayed free recall

The present experiment employed a procedure that was a mixture of Brown-Peterson and free-recall paradigms. Before and after the presentation of each to-be-recalled word, there was a 20-second period of counting-backward activity. At the end of each 10-word list, subjects were asked to free recall the words in that list. After four such lists, they were asked to free recall all the words from the four lists. It was found that not only did the initial recall show a pronounced positive recency effect, but so did the final recall. The results suggest that the observation of a recency effect in a free-recall experiment might not reflect the output of short-term memory.

List Differentiation in Part/Whole Free Recall

In a part/whole free-recall paradigm, whole-list learning was examined as a function of the degree of part-list organization and the extent to which it was maintained. There was a significant positive relationship between both degree and maintenance of part-list organization and whole-list learning. In a second experiment, prior learning was shown to produce typical part/whole results when both lists were identical. The two experiments are viewed as failing to support an hypothesis of inappropriate organization; the role of list differentiation is discussed.

The Effects of Contextual Changes on Component Recognition

Triplets of verbal items were followed by tests for recognition of one of the items, the other two items (context) being intact, permuted, removed from display, or replaced by new items. Recognition was best when the test context was identical to that during training. The data seem to reflect specific retrieval processes, especially the generating of codes from the test item and the comparing of those codes against multiple representations in memory. A fundamental variable in the retrieval of items from memory is the completeness with which the original pattern of stimulation is presented during the tests. McGeoch (1942) has reviewed a number of experiments which demonstrate that recall performance clearly depends on the degree to which the training stimuli are reinstated on the tests. Similarly, experiments involving alterations in 'incidental' background stimuli have produced substantial reductions in the recall and relearning of paired associates (Peterson and Peterson, 1957; Weiss and Margoulis, 1954). Moreover, experiments using a freerecall paradigm have shown that the introduction of 'cue' words during the test phase may either facilitate or inhibit the recall of individual words (Postman, Adams, and Phillips, 1955; Tulving and Pearlstone, 1966; Bower, Clark, Lesgold, and Winzenz, 1969). Although the evidence about the effects of altered test conditions on recall and relearning is quite substantial, experimentation with verbal materials and other measures of retention, particularly recognition, has only recently been reported (Light and Carter-Sobell, 1970; Tulving and Thomson, 1971). The present experiment was an attempt to extend these recent findings by examining how contextual changes might produce variations in the correct recognition of verbal 'units' previously presented in a compound display.

Effects of instructions and retention interval on memory of presentation mode

Memory for mode of presentation (auditory or visual) was investigated in a mixed modality free recall paradigm. The S s either were or were not forewarned of a test on modality identification (MI) following recall. Half the S s were given the MI task immediately following recall and half 15 min after recall. The overall level of MI performance was well above chance in all conditions. The retention interval by modality interaction was significant with auditory words identified more accurately than visual on the immediate test only. There were no differences in recall rate for either modality, nor was there any evidence that S s clustered their recall by modality. The instruction conditions were not significantly different. The implications of these results for several recent memory models were discussed, with the conclusion that many models need elaboration in order to account for the findings.

Free recall among the aged.

The present study was undertaken in order to examine output from short-term storage (STS) and long-term storage (LTS) in elderly Ss using a free-recall paradigm. Contrary to the widespread belief that aged Ss have difficulty recalling recent information, the data indicated no deterioration in recall from STS although recall from LTS was considerably less than is usually demonstrated in free-recall studies.

The generality of free-recall: I. Subjective organization as an ability factor

Using Bousfield’s intertrial repetition measure as a score representing S’s tendency to subjectively organize material in free-recall, a group of S’s were tested on a variety of materials in a multiple trial free-recall paradigm. Evidence obtained did not support a hypothesis of subjective organization being a general individual difference ability factor.

The generality of free-recall: II. Performance as a function of type of material

The Ss were tested on a variety of materials in a multiple trial free-recall paradigm. Correlations between performance on the differing materials suggest that S’s score on any given trial represents a combination of general free-recall factors and factors specific to the kind of material.