Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature. This is important because before adapting theories to account for an effect, it is essential to demonstrate that it is reproducible in different laboratories ( Oberauer et al., 2018). This leads us to question if serial positions have really been ignored in all previous free recall studies, apart from Cyr et al. However, it is slightly uncommon in free recall. This is anticipated in recognition studies in which serial positions are typically ignored. Serial positions have not been considered in studies of the production effect calling upon long-term memory tasks. However, as will be seen below, it is unclear if this interaction is a genuine effect or a by-product of participant-controlled strategies. They interpreted this finding with the Revised Feature Model (RFM) in which relative distinctiveness and rehearsal processes are key factors. When they assessed recall performance as a function of serial position, they uncovered an interaction with a large advantage of produced items on the recency portion of the curve and a large disadvantage on the primacy portion of the curve. (2021) suggested that the lack of an overall production effect in free recall might be more apparent than real. This asymmetry between recognition and free recall performance with pure lists has been identified by MacLeod and Bodner (2017) as an unresolved issue of major theoretical interest. However, as predicted by the relative distinctiveness account, when memory is assessed with a free recall task instead of a recognition task, the between-lists production effect is systematically absent (see, e.g., Cyr et al., 2021 Forrin & MacLeod, 2016 Jones & Pyc, 2014 Lambert et al., 2016). With a recognition task, a smaller production effect has been found with a between-lists manipulation ( Bodner et al., 2014 Fawcett, 2013), leading to the suggestion that a dual-process view could better fit the data than the single relative distinctiveness view. Accordingly, with a between-lists manipulation in which all items are produced or silently read, produced items would lose much of their relative distinctiveness advantage. This production effect has been accounted for by calling upon distinctiveness processes producing the items would make them more distinctive relative to silently read items (e.g., MacLeod et al., 2010). When some words within a list are read aloud and others silently, recall performance is systematically larger for words read aloud, that is, produced (see MacLeod & Bodner, 2017, for an overview). However, the production of the additional distinctive features would disrupt rehearsal. The results further support the Revised Feature Model (RFM) suggesting that produced items are encoded with more modality-dependent distinctive features, therefore benefiting recall. Here, using a between-participants design, we observed the predicted interaction between production and serial positions. However, this pattern was observed with a repeated-measures design, and it may be a by-product of compensatory processes under the control of participants. (2021) showed that this occurs because item production interacts with serial positions: Produced items are less well recalled on the first serial positions than silently read items, while the reverse pattern is observed for the recency portion of the curve. The lack of a between-lists production effect with recall tasks has often been presented as one of its defining characteristics and as a benchmark for evaluating models. In a between-lists condition, produced items are better recognized, but not better recalled. This robust within-list production effect is in contrast with the between-lists condition in which all words are read aloud or silently. Abstract: Reading some words aloud during presentation, that is, producing them, and reading other words silently generate a large memory advantage for words that are produced.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |