University of Nebraska at OmahaDigitalCommons@UNO

Student Work

5-1972

Short-term memory for auditory digit sequences asa function of systematic manipulation of encodingtechnique, digit duration, and interdigit intervalJohn G. MiscikUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork

Part of the Psychology Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access byDigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in StudentWork by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. Formore information, please contact unodigitalcommons@unomaha.edu.

Recommended CitationMiscik, John G., "Short-term memory for auditory digit sequences as a function of systematic manipulation of encoding technique,digit duration, and interdigit interval" (1972). Student Work. 130.https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/130

880B3HCS8KK MEMOEY FOE ASfBifOIY DSdXT

sa q pne ss as a. e m o tio n o f sys te m a tic mmrnavm-OF ENCODING T IC M ip i, D IG IT iM ATIO N * AND IM fEEilG XT INTERVAL

A Hies Is

Ftete&tod to tfca

Departme&t #f Payefeology

a**4 the

f aculty e l tfee Ofaiuata A lleg e

im lveraity of ieferaska at G&afea

la P artia l fu lfillia e a t

®§ tfee rtafuireaeata fa t tine pegge#

iS aa te t a l A rts

fey

Jofea 0* Miscifc

May* m i

UMI Number: EP72768

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Oiss&rtafien Publishing

UMI EP72768

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest'ProQuest LLC.

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

AeoapteA tm thm facuity of Mo §mdmm Collage of &m

of Hebraafes m to fa tfiaX fu lfillm en t of t%&

lo t fetus Haute* of Attu*

Graduate Coasmifetaa# t$&m.

J a I a J J z a ....//■ „Q bs* a J L * * ~ .

A b s tra c t

The erperlmeixt tested whether shaft tmm reteation fa t auditory

d ig it mqmmm amM b® taprev&ft by e ffic ie n t e&eeditig tectmi ues

(Bt) sad increases la e ith er d ig it duration <BB) or la te rd ig lt

in terval A il three hypotheses received stfOBg support from

the data* 'la addition, analysis of tm teractieiis between length of

retention in terval (E l) sad SB» 1M # sad i t led to the- m m tm i&m

that icager 9$ .laid SHI permit increased teaistaace to forgetting

during E,It while e ffic ie n t Bf improves ttMMUUm regardless of 11*

AmtemmlMgrnmz®

#fa te ft*l is extended to Bt* $*a»eth 4* Beff«n«*

bather oh# served a# major thesis advisor .sod teacher* - The w riter

also wishes to mtmM acteowiedgstaeot to Dr.* Evaa I** Brown, i t *

iorman B. iap% and Mr, fa lte r -1* Combs, thesis committal member#,

.fo r ;iie if: assistance and advice throughout, the various-stages o f

-this thesis* Gratitude is' also extended to Dr* t* Safiaoud M illisaet

.for %is assistance in s ta tis tic a l matters*

. A tf$eclatiou -to tttte ftM fee Ar* lo re tte M teayav for her s h ill

arid fatieoee is typing of th is thesis*

' A very special thauk you is extended to the w riter*# w ife ,

Barbara, without whose patience m4 oud era tending th is e ffo rt oeoM

not have been possible*

Tabi# of Contents

patsMttm&rnmlLm * * * • * « * » * * » « » * ' • # * # * * » « * * « ' 1

Hethod 7

Subjects and D e s ig n ................... * * * * * * * * t

Apparatus ami M aterials . • • • « « * * . « . .' • « • • * . t

f tmmdmrn * * * . * # * * * * * ♦ # * * * * * * * * * * * * ' ♦ P Results ID

M m m B im * * * * * * * # ♦ * ♦ * # # * # * * ♦ * * * * ♦ * ♦ XS

References I . . . . . . . * . * . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . M

Appendix » # * * * * • * « • * . ' * • 23

Mot o f $£$89*8

pag#fig * 1* fv o fo ffta i o f correct responses a# a. fraction

o f t r i a l b i o t i t * ■ H

fig * I* Interaction o f d ig it dsit atlas* w ith retention

in te r v a l* 12,.

f ig , 3*. Interaction of in to riig it lo terya i with

t io n In te rv a l* I I

fig * 4* action of encoding tecteioue# with rote****

tien In terval* 14

tn short-term mmmf ( lilt ) expar te n ts , error# to re c a ll have

tr-adittonally served a# a , m m m o . of tatemfete loos. The creation

arises as: to Mother errors in re ca ll are dm m forgetting, or to

imd&qmm e&eediikg, or both*., I t 'has bmn shown that .accuracy of.

reca ll varies in d irectly ’ w ith ilia ■rata of stimulus. f*mmt&t$.m

(a«g*# Aareitsem,. 1968)*., I t is fosaiM e that sfeteliss p?ese&f&tlo&

ta ts coaM have .this of fact by ietermiatog the M t t of time avail­

able fo r encoding*. A .fast ptesemfeafeiom fa te , fo r example, might to t

allow 'Swoegh fete A or Jo. to' employ a t e&eedimg tech&icue

(If)# . M is lack of fete could maeifeet Its e lf as errors fa. reca ll*

C ertain ly, a hotter umderstamdlmg of the factors tetem eim g- the

encoding process could fa c ilita te umdetatasdimg of tetemtiom*

The STM. trace, i t characterised at being subject to rapid decay

la contrast to the s ta b ility and ■ permanence of long-term memory

traces (Marx,. 1969, £h* i t ) * The amfeomemems decay-of the .'SHI- trace,

is believed to be a' f tiaction of t t e and has been demonstrated m

occurring during very short Intervals a fte r the prestatafeiom of.

verbal items* fetersom and teteraoo (1SS9) found' a decrement t o "

retention across a ir short retention to te te Is .while eonferolltog

fo r the o ff acta of rehearsal.*. M e decrement to retention. found

by the fafeersone suppoffes the decay theory| however, i t does mot

confirm time as the sole factor responsible ■ for th is phenomenon*

. toother factor affecfeimg 'mMmMm lose is iaterferemce*

fauth mM Sonsam C ltA l) ami Hotmam (1966) comiticfeei studies in

which they praamMM a lis t of 15 d ig its followed fey a probe

d ig it that had appeared e a rlie r in .the lis t* Js were to reca ll

t

tfie d ig it ffeat had followed tfe# ptofe# d ig it to ffee lis t* ffet rat# of

pm&mtmimm mm nartod* Botfe studies found fa te of decay m be -m

im m ttm of the number of toterveutog item# {tocerieteuee) irreepec*

tin e Of m m © f pm&mtmien* ffeei# m re some treads £»

ttieli? 4am that suggest m et temporal delay may sis© be impmtmt*

liekeigrea (1910) * ©sing a probe faa#g©£tf©m paradigm* p&mmteA a

l is t of f or IS Io ffe s a t a rate #1 .one, two* or four le tte rs per

secois# followed fey a fast lo t te r* followed fey fie I 1# decision as to

« M » tr tli® test le tte r apteared to ffes ptevtoos Met# mekeigreu

found that feofcfe time and t ie namfeer of- totervetitog items at# Important

factors to produetog decay to SIM,

them m e me iistereettog fossifettofie# with respect to the o f*

feet# oa memory o f time md im m im em a* Wy keeping im tm im m m

constant m& by- raryittg the stimulus presentation mm i t was- thought

fia t# firs t* reductog the m m might allow mot# time fo r dteay* nod

tfe©*#fo*e resu lt to. loo** to o o ll accuracy ( f ile would support the

trace decay lyf©fit#ato)\* and second* reducing the rate migfefc allow

more time fo r ©*g*t&to#t£©& of tie stimulus g&d therefore resu lt to

feigner team,!, accuracy*

iscpettoeatai results pronto# autocue# tm both of these peasto

fe ilitie e *. Follack* tofensea* and to a ff (1959) said Foilacfe and

tobaaoa <19# 3) sfeowto greater re c a ll accuracy at slower rates using

tuautog memory span paradigms with, rates raugtog from #115 to four

items, -pm sec* to another study fo liaek (1952) found ifeat feotfe tfee

percentage o f items recalled correctly and fcfee amount of fuformatioa

transmitted tocroasei as the presentation rat# of auditory sequences

3

of d ig its sod le tte rs was ■ decreased H m im t m #11 tu rn pot;■see,-

tQllm k. suggested that Jo pe&feiMd bettor at the slot# rates fee**-,

cause gfegy could.use uUa-mnm lino lo t eocodiot amd otgsoiiiog

gfee stimulus information* Lim iting tlio amount of time available

bmmm-Hm items i f increasing. the ruts m ild .fc a ttiiit the range

of m€0im$ s tta to iio # i-bai Jgs could employ* psftuipe preventing

Him f$m using am optimal strategy* ,

fm offset mpmimmrnm finding hotter pm£t>mmm m a !m

rather tlam fast pce©eistai iem rates to SH4, tasks m m S itterley

studying ot&er re c a ll of n is u a llf presented d ig its , and.

Smith studying order re c a ll of auditory d ig its *

4 1 0 0 studies have ©tiem am increase la re ca ll accuracy as

ike ta t# of atlmftlxsA ptesemtatioa was Increased, Oomrad and l i l l e

<1958) presented auditory sequences at 30 or #0 d ig its per minute ♦

fa- support of th e ir memory^traee^eeay hypothesis, .more errors

m m found wit!* tfee slower ra te of presentation. fm m t (1964),

attempting to slow that increasing tbs rate of presentation w ill

Improve, re ca ll because of decreased time 1m storage in teaks which

tend. to reduce tie use of reca ll strategies, ,p*t»euttd # lg iit*d ig it

auditory sequences a t either 30.or f t d ig its-per minute, ie found

higher accuracy fo r tie Ia s i than fo r' the slow rate fo r order re c a ll

in agreement with Comrad ami Sill©*© data,

the ■ precise factors which cause, a slow rate of presemtatioo

to fa c ilita te tetemtlou over a fast rate im some-erperlmemts, %m

to have the opposite e ffect in others bare sot yet beau identified*

It. is possible that variations in certain perceptual factors among

the various s ts iiiig can 1ft part account §m the co n flict i$t§ 'results*

tm most previous studies* stimulus intensity* stimulus ia te iiig ife tl**

Ity y stimulusi duration* m i other lac tots chat may effect perception

mac# not carefu lly teu fio iled cm measured (Aaronnon, i f #?>* ■ Poilaeh

and ileljeasteia's <1963) data suggest tM In te tM g i*

fe llity mM thereby immmmimg it*© time needed to perceive the stim uli

my-haw* mmo effects sim ilar to t%oso of increasing the rata*

Mmmmm ■Clfi?) suggested that stimulus iu te llig ife ility is important

in determining the effects of rat©, m reca ll*

0m may # f iicreasiug freseotatiou rate h&is fee©& to- uniformly

delete small sections from tape recordings of natural speech and

©ompfess die remainder* Garvey <itSi> used th is speech eompressiou

method- -and found that speech- accelerated as much a t Cue times the

original speed s t i l l provided $%% or greater in te llig ib ility * Not

u n til acceleration reached four'tim es orig inal speed did in te lllg i**

fe lllty drop halm 3 tf *

Essentially.* tfe© presentation fate in $fi e&perimeots cam fee

increased eith er fey decreasing the stimulus duration* fey decreasing

the inters time lus in terva l, of a comfeieatiou of both* Host studies

in SIM hare fa iled to systematically manipulate these mo varlafelm*

Couscqueutly., the results may well, fee confouuiled* One study con*

ducted fey Serrlugtoo m i repotted fey Bergstrom <1967) manipulated "f"-.

imtetstimxhis interval, ami stimulus deration independently. Berg*

strom reported that varying stimulus duration, had no effect oh re *

teatiom* ufelie longer iaterstim ulus intervals m m associated with

higher -recall* there have feecs gee studies that manipulated sfciir*

i

tils# duration and tntmmimmlm in terval using d ig it set toga as the

stim u li. thus,, the i m t e l time i t took to present one d ig it of

the s itin g m a fcef«ed d ig it duration <00># end the amount of, time

between each d ig it was termed Im te rfig it in terval <IDX>«. S itterley

(1968) systematically varied IS sad ID I fo r visually presented dig*

ins and found that tm rnm tm when either of ■ these variables

was increased* Smith <19?1) also iootul that retention increased with

as '■ immmmo in either it- or 101 fo r auditory prsssntntlons of four**

d ig it nfuritags*

f ie increase im retention wh&m W im ssastsnt and 101 is Im*

creased has been attributed to the fac t that more time is available

to .$& im orgamieatioa ami rehearsal of m aterial (Posner* 1963).

the increase is retention with an increase im i t * when 101 is held

constant* is met read ily arflaim ed* S it te r ley <1968) assumed- that

whatever 'the process was that caused the increase is- retention,: i t

wist have boon operating while mew stimulus imfotmatiom was being

received by $*. . thus, |s were seen a# receiving mew information

and simultaneously processing, categorizing,. and storing old infer**

station..

Evidence against S icterley*& mwmpttom was provided by ificke l*

gren (1,970) who f mmM. that the decay rate fo r previous items appeared

to he greater during the. t im tm acquisition of a mew i tm than dur*

- log the time between stip is iiiem of adjacent items* At present the

increase in. retention- with an increase in 0$ while 101 is held com*

scant has not 'been adequately explained.* iowcvec, a possible emplan*

ation night he that any W over that which .is needed- m make the d ig it

*

in te llig ib le to the J| mti be used le t orgaattatioaal time or re**

hearsal.

to gooerai a tta in s ergeotafteo taelimi uea haue beau im m i to

fa c ilita te mzmt&m* Wm example.* ( I f f t ) a ta te d p S '

effect© m te e a il of I t md f«wupd P o tt e ffitis s it eocodiog fe e ili^

Kate© re c a llf ergsniaaiieitat ftoeesiteg structure the e tta M in

storage! J*s placement strategy M storage I# a resu lt o f a choice

from among Isis fte -ex ia tieg otganiratlo iu il. feetmt<gu&&* Chtfct&iug

i t m encoding and so © rgaotafieoat process* the chunking. h f*

pothesis mrnmmM that fmdtuiduele mmmhm m t only separate items

of imiozmnimg but alee %kmk&m mi tmirnmz&m* tememberiog is**

formation as chunks permits, so 'ioctease in the immediate memory

sfSa (M iller., i f 14).* Meltoo ( it# ! ) has contended that the rate of

forgetting of a un it presented once is dependent- upott the mmmt-

of in ttau o it interference. ami that th is . ia te rfe t■m m i# a fwoetioo

of the number of ebooks encoded w ithin the to ta l stimulus as d ie *

itn e t from the to ta l cumber of physical rnlmmts (le tte rs , oombera*

phrase#') preseat* Melto»fa eoateatioa is sat ported, by Murdock*a

( if# l) findings that oae-wori stim uli are remembered s igo ifieaotly

better than ptas^uord stim uli due to th reefo ld stim uli haring, greater

imttmmkt iutetfeteaee* ■■■;■'/

4 basic assumption: is 'that chunking, being am orgaalaatioaal

process* requires time* .I f i t can'be.skews that chucking fa e ili*

fates m tm &im * then i t could fee 'proposed p a t the amount o f W

over that which is•seeded for in te llig ib ility could he used fo r

e tg am ta fta a t techniques or fo r other processes seek a# rehearsal.

t

ftm present study design*# m system atically mamigolatc

m § Bb* W t§ ctlsS felsftfc* CfB)# and m m m im M v a l when.

& * ■ s t is m l i mm emoodad te t# ehs&fes* ft'f f t b e lie ve d th a t th e i s uh*

mm encoding tfc r***d i$ it cloaks w ill pmimm aftpkftfftog&tly. better

then Jo who are *»geftftB$ tw**ftftgftt efiaaks* nit# In. tore. w ill 4# aig~

mifieamfcly better them Js flia t ft* mot I t ft*, believed that the

p ^ o rtfte ii of correct responses' w ill s ig n ifican tly increase- when

either# or loft*# $& eal m are ft* I * $isftcti#s (1971) stadf #

i t ■ is believed that M> and ZM wiM im m m z w ith :t t * w ith greater

retaatioa differences sImmm a t'th e lo ite r its . I t im believed that

the .proportion of mmmm mnpmmm w ill s iis tftfiea a tlf decrease as

the retention lu t m l Is increased. &s in Smith1 a (1971) stndy,

there, should be- m f i e ffect*

Method

the sample ««eft in tM s * tufty consisted of 9§ jg# drawn from' the

ia trM o eto ff **y*feol*gy coatee a t the imftwaireiiy of iebraeta at ©mala,

the g* mere volunteers who participated lo t eattra cred it* ' Five £#

mere randomly assigned to eaoit of the IS- between Ss ce lls of a 2<BB)

X 3 cm) 1 3 <80 t S. (fB> t § <BI) fac to ria l denis® with repeated

* * * * * * * * oo tie la s t too factors.

file items' fo r verba! re c a ll vote ;*ft8*«ftftgft* -Mdto* aefoeseea*

lach d ig it was randomly selected. Only arable numerals from one to

mine were used as d ig its ami mo d ig it appeared twice in the same

■mmhmt* freaaatatioo of a sin^digit number constituted cm# tr ia l

u itti a to ta l of S i. tr ia ls , fla re wmm ®Zm presentation rate

8

m m iiiM m m3 ih tm El (e&et&i&g) mwiM&vm m &hmm .Is fable I*

M l cosdittois easleyad fcSie' same raadomlted d ig it aaqmmm* tm&M

# f m were *$ see* m i 1 see** wbile lere le o i IPS were § sec** *.S

«ee#t '* M | 1 see*

fa M e 1

Stiiaaiae wmtBmtmim ta t# aad stimalm Ef E m iitio m

■ -f t e s e a t e f . .la te . B f.C ts ils is s t. .

t • & •".m Ho fSttt&fe&igt {1»8^6^3->7«"1)

;-l <W) • 5” 0M % iwosi (18*61*72)

I I 1.0" ow Cbasklag hf ciureeai <186*372)

111 m > .5 ° ♦$*Hotel -iaet* of tfce i f coadittoas

t? 1*0“ «5*f ws# mp%0 fn i a t #actr#f ,tfi# star firta ta ta tio a rat# eosditioits*

v m ) • S I.0 tt

VI 1*#* 1.0” (f€> fie # coiatresaed

Five Els *?«*«; wwAt #t t* 4t f * out I# see* fo r f>atsetts of

raadoaiiiatiea 0m tr ia ls m m divided M m 10 Moefet of fiv e tr ia ls

each*. W itMa eaeti bloeE fit# $ was. tested '«a$e fo r amh 11* Hie. #**

order to wMeti eaefe 11 oeesrred was detetiaisied fta a a fsodom issuer

taM s sad tm a im i m m tm t fo r a ll Js* /ft*.# f ie were derived by

dividing tie 18' i f te le lo ts ■fir# b le e te o i 1§ tr ia ls each* fhsrefore*

within eacfe fB rlie £ was tested twice fo r tact* El*

Apparatus aad la fc rla l#

M I d ig its were $#$# recorded a t 3*75 ia/see* ta$e sfead oslag

§

a standard twoHraeb mensural tape recorder equipped with * remote

«w rt*8W f switch. the three time compressed tapes m m obtained by

processing the tmmdmd d ig its through a W hirling Dervish apeecfe*ttme,

compressor (model $1 14) oasmfactmred by Wimmmed Sound. \fh a ,,.

Dervish is aa electromechanical device that .tas* discard pemime « f

recorded m aterial* to r Hits study portions of IS msec* were a lta r * ,■

matcly discarded with the remaining portions being empmmed by a

fac to r' of too* the t i l im tike time compressed tapes ms processed

Is the same wrnmm m& ntm lem em elf w ith S®» As an example* the

3 see* DD/.S see*, W% em d itim was produced by time compressing a

1 see'* hh/1 -see* 101 tape*

to prevent rehearsal dor lag tf* .||s were mgaisad to read aloud

from a chart containing I f tows of 1® eae*4oeh high le tte rs *' Bach

le tte r was randomly selected from the alphabet* excluding the le tte rs

I ■ and # which were mot used, i t m$ f e l t . that continuous verbal so-*

tiu lty during the time' between presentation and signal to ,re c a ll muM

mimiMm rehearsal behavior (Peterson and Peter ©os* I f 59) * .A. ■Chart*,

using *5 im* members* was employed to give Js a p ic to ria l example o f.

horn t# group the d ig its te r the thtOe. Bf hoaiitiooa (i*e ** I4 4 » j*

f» l| 1 $*£3*»?2f I8 € » lff)* • the* ssm e.dl|Its wets iisei fo r...a ll three

examples* Timing, was accomplished using a staadatd * t f sec. stop

watch.: ‘ * “

• •

SSnd B war# -seated m a 'fable, Im a i t I i f ft*- semi**sound**

proof cubicle.- the tape* recorder was 'positioned cm the table between.

J5 and jg. the scrambled alphabet ' abort'1 was taped' to- the w all a t aye

m

level three f t * i® fro st o f £* The Sf conditions w t

established by '&m ttmtiom * As a® eaaopl®, Ss as#ip*®# to cbonk by

threes were tmtm&m& to $tmp 0m d ig its by threes and to m im in

imm aeisg aay other mthmiqm* fo r oo&pleca lastrnefcions given m

Sy se# ib# A ffta&M* tbs Ss *<&fl£rVO«f fM It Instfeetio®# i tm * '

recorded taps a t a ootoal eopyersaiEAd® race.. As each £ listened to

the inscrnetions* be was show® the p ic to ria l onaaspi#. of bo# to group

the d ig its *

On each t r ia l £ board a siE~digit ®«mbet ©a the tape taoof Act

and the® toniadiately begat* reading the a o M b la i alphabet chart as

tepidly as lie cowld u n til. asked to tfooall the mmbm by JE*

A il' £a m m given sin practice tr ia ls fflosr t# starting the

erperimeot* these were a lto oo tape*

Resoles

m if those d ig its that were aeenrateiy recalled lo th e ir proper

seria l position were scored m feeing correct* Since each EE m&

tested twice w ithin each t r ia l block* the tmmismm noafeer correct fo r

each retention in terval w old be 11 <ais*«4igit ntmfeera E two tests) *

the ©tote entered into the previsest f described analysis of variance

was the proportion correct of it# A ll contrasts were accotaplished

as log the fokey A procedure fo r ®»ifcipM ccmparfeo®**

So averaged a proportion of *4! correct responses a t the *5 set*

I t and »St a t the 1 sec# Bf*. the difference between these tm levels

m& significant f{l,7 2 ':> » 9*£3# p< *005.

As IfE was increased $tm 0 sec*- .to .5 sac* to 1 sec**, retention

increased* At 0 see# WL B& averaged .41 , a t the *5 sec,* I f l *48,

I t

m€ *54 at the I tit* StwMHfe 4iffotomo#a mxe §wm& m So ®i$**

n tiic m t 9(5*72} *>5*26» f< #01* .M l fionism ti i#**e .sigaiftoant at

ttMT.ftOt 1$V«3U

the 'of foot of Bf an ?(£#?2) ** 2&»34* p < *001* to o rer*

ag©4 *41 to ffe« m chunking condition* *$$ mkm ©booking &9 twos* md

#S3 when chunking, by thmm * M l tamtrasfcs ware aigiitf leant at the

♦it level*

tbe ■ average ptof©tfieiJ of eerreet teepees**' for tba 0f t# 4,

i* muft 16 too* vegeetleik interval# mm *M» #S&*: .*.45* *5?* and *30*

teapeetivelf* fbe auMfsle wmmtMeS la. an f (4*284 * 426*4?t p< ♦til#

«y

1.00

.90£ 80 oE .70 8 .60

.50 40 .30 .20

zoH(TOCLOCLCL

2 3TRIAL BLOCKS

fig * 1*. f? ©portion of eettect reapoaae# a t a fnnetion of t r ia l Moefe#*

i t

A it coBtraste m m fo m i significant' atf the M le v e l M confidence*

Across zM five f& CwmhwtBd X thm 5) Ja averaged fteperiioaax. ' ■

#1 .*40f *47. *50. .S I* and *49 # tes-fceativoly. tM analysis 'taaniited

t®. ta ;I|4 ,IIS } 7,68, p< #001* A ll oeniirases ware frniai a ig aiflaaaf

at tbo *01 le v e l.. essccft t i l m t i l <*§S leve l) and t i l va -IS 5. (not

sig n ifican t) * figcre 1' depict© bow fetfortaance decreased from f it . ta

f i t , hm the» increased m m d ttf itm f i t to f i t m& fin a lly t ete ta i

it© peak a t fS&f thereafter. pmimwmmm dootoaMI a t IBS ta a level

a iig titiy below tlia t o f - t il# A trend analysis revealed only a positive

linear fa n a tic F(4.44S} a 8*73. p< *001*

1.00

.90

.80

.70

.60

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10

RETENTION INTERVAL (SEC)

fig * 2« immmK&m of d ig it dotation with ra ta iiiio a .interval*

13

# #f 00 as a fassttss of El. resulted to a slgaificaat taret& etlre f (4 *2.88} ■« i * t f t p< #021 • figure 2 yrereiit* trapM ***

a lly to t dlffereti&re to ffe fo rtto a of 'mmmm im eadh of

toe toe level# of i i seres# labels of II#

4 ref* ef faeto analysis rasulfsi to a sigslftoaiit 4If*lotaues only at. too 4 see* El* F (1*244) * 37#01# p< #001; toe i see# El# f (1*144) ♦ n«*0* t *M li ref tot. 14 see# 11* f (1*244) • 31*88*p < *081#

levels o f W t were found to signlftoasfcly to to t set u ito E l* f

(8*t8i) * 3*44* p< *m$* figure 3 deplete toto rtlatloasEip* to

1.00

r lD lS 70

.60

o” IDI.50

O .40

.20

° RETENTION INTERVAL (SEC)

fig# 3* totofaetioii of tottfdiglt totorval with mtmtion totsrval*

14

a m lf t is * © f t i n %w is t s i f m m i s g ig s i f ie a s t

mem $®m§ sa if m fefes t mm* &1* f(2»244) * S*#%f< *ii$ Ota-4

tee* E I# *<2,344) f< *0 0 I| eg* .9 « •** I I * fC tf l44> * t f i t t ,

f < * « g aaS ctMl U sm-4 it* f | t #244> « J+m* p<*WB* ■ Ail- contz.mm

m tin i't* % $.* m& I t «#©*■ its ■ f smut #i$&&fi&ratE ag t is *§ i'

1 m®U

Ast as&iysis &€ 'ttsa levels of I f as a fa& ettei of i t wmm^M a

a tp ilf its a i istagastiOfi #0*30$) f <♦#!*■ f&la relatlosstiip la

§ ia iatssi .Is tigaira 4*- A simple -tuaim o ffsat*

ss lts i is f&s te a ts of i f ba&tg atgMiisaattj? d ifferent at tfea 0 s&e.

1.00

h - *9°U j .80oeO -70o

.60

O .50

g .40a.O .30oe^ .20

.10 h

0 -o CHUNKING BY f t

« CHUNKING BY 2’S ■a NO CHUNKING

— -o

0 2 4 8

RETENTION INTERVAL (SEC)

_ j

16

fig * 4* tmmmmixm of assaiiag tsaiifiteas ixttem ii*

xs

»$ * w §* ' |VV*| trfe# % #fM$# I I I , l?(2f 244) ®- S4-#S'9§ p<

•001$ the 4 see* B I# f (1,144) *• 3$*01, p< *001$ f i t -8 set* E l, F (t,

t4 4 > " *'li*4 |, f < *001$ a ti a t 'f it 1# tea* H I, t ( l #.l44) » 8.17» p<

*001* 411 ma&m&m mm. found f t

sir f i t t e a a t f l i t 2 s a t* E l (n o t

t t t l f i» o

El metre f t t t i . t<

< *am , ana a

i f , ® * i >£

were sig n ifican t. the

with t»# n u * m i) .* 5.12,latereetloe found I t *

« t * i * # p< *0 is *

s e t

eamtiot be

ter*

0 and H I effects

i l l) ' foixfttS ■ fle e t

. Eaber and fratbanson

la te also ahema fla t efeam either 00 a t H I ate increased^

in these studies,

time Increases I t

same effects usiag strings

f i t # 0 and H I e f fe c ts

of 00

tee* 00 indicates f la t t it '

w ithin t i t *5 see* 00*

avaiis itie , when 0 0 # t 101

retention even at tie *3

process tmisf lave- been completed

i t la fe lt th a t the astra tim e

u

hearsal.

E ffic ien t If * chunking b f wqb or threes* increased recemciofi

considerably m compared with the effects o f no chunking* ftiis

■finding is Is agreement with l i l la r {itSd|^iiiifd©ols. (1961)* sad

lower (1969)* Sowm t* .is chunking by too# performed better Cham

those chunking b f threes* a f ind ie! &mmmf t© leypotheniii# 4

feasible enplamatiom is that chunking by threes wee a less fam iliar

teefeelqee to Sa thee chunking bf mo«« Consequently* Bp cheeking

bf threes map M m performed considerably be lew th e ir asymptotic

level* ■ 4 solstice eight he to giro J# enowgli giraetioe to reach

asymptote p rior m the s ta rt o f the m pm im m *

tM fB analysis revealed practice effects as a positive linear

treed im contrast to the absence of these effects found b f Smith

(1911)* However* the present study d iffe rs from the Smith study

Im that he employed fotsr*dl$lt stim uli and he 414 mot employ a

chunking variable* the former difference might have tesrnlted im

practice effects 4m m mi® d ig it# requiring a greater processing'

e ffo rt them four d ig its* however* i f the la tte r difference ffew tlt*

ed im practice effect# th is w ild lead seme supper t fo r the explgma-

ties* previously aomtiomed* that Ja Cliunking bf three# may have per*

formed eemsMeiabif halo# asymptote*

4s the length of 42. was increased fro® 0 to 1# tec** retention

decreased with negative acceleration* th is retention loss mu com-

sisteut with that of feiertom mid Peterson (1959) and indicates that

the great*## amount of decay or retention Eos# occmf# in 'the f ir s t

few second# a fte r stimulus presentation.

I?

f lr a t order interactions bmmm m& M $ mi. W i .mi Ut

Indicate tlsaf th& £miUMt%v® e ffect m retention of increases

in ED asdSDl wet greater a t itie longer E l thati a t tE© w to tt** E l*

fttis e ffect* also fotmd % SmitE (M f lli eeoM M tte 'fta n lf of in *

creased resistance to lo g o ffin g im . m m m timo fo r reieairsal*

At re ca ll* wtlim&i a t ft*# cations levels ■ of-W and. ;1D%-.■■-.■

pmb&htf exist m m tf traces* hmmm mwt l i t t le

t im bm elapsed between mrnhMnbmmt o f tfec t r mem m i re c a ll*

As »!■ is immmwd# im m ta f# to $%mm fo r t ie looter Wo m i

XBls im to a stronger mmmf trace esfcaMifitiM t*y- mote rehearsal,

IsotaaaoE resistance to forgetting*

fit# e ffect of o ffic ia n t I f sem i to %e that; tfetoogE a feccep**

te a l reorganisation fttcr allow fo r mom im m m *m stored ■ in few**

at locations* State stav &# fa o tiiia ti^ o to mo ways*- iif tc * f t"

may decrease the mrnmt of interference bommm. im m bf decrees*

log flie mmb&x o f location# needed. fo r scersge* ffeia swggsst* fcimt

■ itsst more looattooa needed to store stimtilns items* the greater the

inferfereaee#, Second* feecaose o f fewer looattoaa f t might © ito

if*# re triev a l pwmmo mom e ffic ie n t* Asao example, re trie v a l

wfcea otoEing i f tiroes requites extracting tie oonfoata of onlf

mm locations instead oi a ir locations «ta» not #1*of&it»g* 'fie fact

ifta i at tie 0 sec# ml (ismmdiate re c a ll) choafcing i f threes did

hotter tkm. Be- .atntt&tag hf twos* #tu» In totsi did hotter tlian So not

cto iM » i stifgotc® to ili

W | a speculative explanation tan ha offered for ft# orot#*

over of the chnnElog hf toot and ctnnEing % threes retention corves

(see figure 4 ). Even though m immiMm. re ta il chonEiiig: by three#

fa c ilita te d retention m ot etaii&liig b f twos* as E l mm increased

I**#! tli# opposite eeenftintr- Storing tits© d ig it# im mm. location-

(ehangtiag bf. threes) might ■omm .greater i&tr&ehoxik in to le ra n t#

thaw when aeotiag only tm d ig its fa each iocatioa (chunking by.

two#)* I f i t is anaiim#! that th is iatrathisjtb latairioraiio# is * '

■creases'with length of EE, than thnaMog by .three# would be la *

ata aa ia tlr less fa o ilita tiv o o f - ■faoall a# E l .',1# imzmm&i* th e '

offeet might .involve a confusion. of th e .sequential relationships

w ithin the chunk* leading, the j | to confuse the sequential mimt of

th e:ifttfaghpfe item#* la aaeriag J#1 responses i t was noticed that,

occasionally. Jo would report the correct d ig it# fctst not im th e ir

correct s e ria l position: («•&»'» 486 instead of 6&4 the correct. order)•

This eep etfic ia l observation would seem to Indicate a los# o f.\tb t\ '

sequential relationships withtn the chunk* ilofcovet, i i oae chunk'

va# incorrectly reca ll# ! when chunking by three# .it-would ■IftOfcas#

the S% m w m score by three, point# whereas I t mould only'iecfeasq.', ■

by two point# i f the j | were chunking by twos* M an example, i f both

, group# of - Bs mwm ■«# .1### mm mlmmk m m -a M sec* 'E l "It is-'■■'■'■ . ■■ ■ i ■ ■ ** , , . i

obvious that cluiotog by'-two# wtutM show- the^better performance* '■.-

^Ute -ff^ieot^ awperiment: has provided a t least home- concrete

fM iCAilott that m m m in #bort»tet» retention may be im not only

to forgetting can##! by fnsu ffle leu t rehearsal, for-example, but also

to ;loefi in the encoding process* fhese two.sources of

error are independently maaipulabl# through variations in encoding

la# traction# an! stimulus presentation rate*

19

Some mmMet&ti&m fo r future mpmtirnmmum arc. suggested

by tit# present study* f irs t* a study &hmM be conducted to m *

plmtm $m a mmm fmmmmH iaatitoii fife a llee t# 'm re ca ll of d if~

latent /Imgtfea mi auditory eetfage* fb is m ild .lodieate tbe e££

feet of' d iffe ren t levels of t&m M^m im kam tmmMi or items/

stimulus} mm m StI* Second# m mpmimmt sbouM fee ceaduoicd

m determine tie o f foot#* across &I# mi w a t tie mia'imem level ■

trnqptoM fo r ia tfe lllg ttillity * f ife would reveal t i# nature of fife

decay function whet* orgm igatloiial fecbiiicfues and rehearsal could

oof fee employed# third# by cmployiug aa if m i im m m m rntlf to* creasing BB* #taf ting at. ft*# mimimm dotation mMtoA fm to ta l*

lig ib tlity # the m i©fs» mmmt of time needed to employ an 'if

could be id en tified * Perhaps - t ie in te llig ib ility dotation should

bfe tie basis lo t fell# parametric increases in SB* I t I® ffe lt t f ia ta

M> % Ef itkteraetloa would bm found, when emperlag tie effects -of a »0

as long' as one eeeesd .with itmm of a DU ftfesented at tie '1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 *

M lity dotation* f ils ease procedure of incrementally m

statting a t the io te llig iM M ty dtitatiofe ccmld is used to deteirmiofe

tie minimum mtmmt mi time t in t B i m ot be increased in order to ■■■

sig n ifican tly fa c ilita te retention wtiea mi Ef is not used* I t is

Ofeite '0 0 0 0 1 1 1 # ffifei the BB level found from th is procedure would be

tbfe minimum time accessary fo r rehearsal* Foottit# a study should be.

conducted to dotetmiue tlie effects of d iffe ren t s ite chucks Cl# 3#

4* and $ iteffts/ebuck) across I I * ffels would provide a better under*

staadicg of iutracbuuk Interfereucfe as I t relates to retention across

I I *

m

immmm* B* temporal factors to pmmp&im and short-tem mmmf*

Wrnm»l*m toa* M & u ix u M67* 110-414#

®* temporal m m m mi petcepttof* to m Immediate m m 11

ta sk*

Bargsfcr cmi# $ * I f feats o f' £$«»$** in time vgttofetos to mamottotog

together with dtoewatoti mi the te&m&tptm- mi mmmf esparto

mrntmtm* JmmtMm im tm i mi Pmmhml&m* !$§?* jg * 106-130#

Mmm* ## 1# ifamhm'm $mmimmwm m itm to free reca ll* toafasl.

M .te la i im rn tm m . Verbal Bchgyloy, » 6 9 , 8, 610-6X3.

Conrad# &*.f 6 M il# * B* toe decay theory a t imBdtotomam#*? and

paced reca ll* m m M m J m tm l #1, l» if& 9l« a t* 3JSi* J|^ 1*6#

Carvey#- W# i#. toe to ta lllg ih tlity mi speeded mpmmh* Jeanssl of

l^ e ir ^ ito l gtyeholofiy* 1*98* 45, 101-101#

fisher* fU I# , 4 H t t o m i I** $* fvocesstog mi soonesttolly pte-

se&t&ed letters# .iM tiH liffli M i Psychophysics* l# 0 t* j|* IS to lil*

Harm* M# I# ft^cetiea# to t totfe* Macmillan# 1*89*

Helton# 0# tf* Implication# of memory §m a genets!

ttwory o f memory. Journal Verbal leara^a g g Verbal. M aSlg£»

1963, 2,. 1-21,

M iller# #* 4# toe magical number seven# fiv e or mtoca two*; Some

lim its on cot. capeeicy lo t proeesatog totomitiom*

Beview# 1*14# ■jgf* 81-47#

$#■ Iffa c t# mi Mooitog on short-term memory#

> 1970# ,g|# 28?«#9t*

21

Ittoook* B, 1* ft)# rotootioa # f to to tftia l Ita m * Mmm&t of

m* mwmr noM^ u i n i t j i *^ t o r a * ft* 4* M m i& i& tm t o k i h w H d n i s m r r *

m m m * t m * m * * k m m u

toorson* - %* - E* | * % f mmmn, ' 1# -1# to tfc *ta $ * r#fetitioa of in *

i i t o a a t v o t o i !$«»&* o f l iS f *

J § * l i 3 * 4 i f t # <

fo llaok* 1* the of' ta t# o f pmmm®t%m of iaform atto*

Bopotf $<u BSt I f i t * totaa Wmt&m %mmw%h iafeot**

mm$m* <&& 140)

fa llto tt I*.* ■% 4otoo?i* £» B* ■ &mttos£ag wmmzf $mm for 4 ig its * . v

jg a a B B ft « & a » - a a a u * * * # M i 731- 734*Pall&ek# t * # Jolmmm, I* i * t B t o f f * f* 1* ftm ttag M to tf aft&a*

t o f t o j f m m m trnm ^ fsw m tim '. “ I f S i* ST* ’ 131-444.

fo llaok* I« * & tatMttsaaia* S* tins# to la « a maasag# sets

to to s e / $mm%* M m , #, S7-42 *

faaaar* H* 1«> X ta to to * m m ? la s####atlal ta to * fa t to to te it

M iS M a . 1963. i t . 333-349.

Poener, H. I . > fiat# of presentation and order of reca ll fa immediate

memory. ftM to it J im m i o f Payot*.logy, W64, | |» 303-306.

$&tfeotlegrt f * s* ■ fto t»t#fis mm nMm of aofaearially $f#ae&to

V ig ils a# a im m tim o f' im fa tifg lf ia ta to a i* d ig it tturaeioa* t o

1S6B, I t *aerios laagt&#

I7 4 *l? i.

M U&t J* H* Sfeort torm aaaor? a# a to a tio a of -aatolaa to a tfo a

t o fatm ^atto ltxa latasm l* fa to ilto iS o to f* to w m ity of

2Z

Nebraska m OsMfea* 1971*

Sfassgti* H* € *f & Mortoaa* 9* A* fttm ty taemoty*

^ s« B » * * * W *

Wia&aigfaa* $?■* A* ftme* latetfete&se* atid rat# ■ Qt $r*aenfe*fci<m £s*

ab o rts*#* t#$0$p£ti#st wm&tf f«# twwwu

^ t m $ f # .tti*4$S*

23

ApiHBsd-is

Ito ttU C tlO ltS

This i^etlm eo i is designed to Investigate &hmb~mm mmotf* I t is sot a tost that ym shooid become sfotoiioosloo about im m$ way.MX you w ill have to do is remember . sist^digit* combers :m m short is * tstools of tim e*' loo o ii i hear on' the tape ttoorday to# number sMcii you at# to remember u n til toe B asks for Its re c a ll; §&& fwrpnatt of th is experiment is to iiiw toti§aie the effects o f d iffe ren t grouping tech&iouae oa STM- f$s# below fo r continuation to ohoitors sad non* lo a fe rs *}

Too are totlgtod to a no grouping condition and most therefore to * taambiit each d ig it separately* I f you or#tfitaos a tendency to group ‘ toe d ig its in say way* you nbsi. persist sad avoid uaiug ouch a tech* aiqus. I t is very important that you try to astir d ig it seta*rarely w ithin tl10 number. feu mast net group -to r digits, to any way* to an example* you would remember th# number 14297$ m 1*4*2*©~7~3 sod sot 14*29*7$ of 142*873 or m f offcsr oemMnation or grouping* fa lto rs to follow those tto trto fio as would bo cheating sad yog would defeat the propose of tto esyettoeets therefore* yourl complete oooyorstloa to raguestod to ensure its success* totodistoly a fte r hearing too number, you m® to toad too le tte rs '-tost you ®m hoimm you* out loiai* as rapidly as yog emi* too at# to s ta rt with a d iffe ren t row of let** tars each tim e. Bo set s ta rt with too sms. row tetoe to succession* Continue reading toe le tte rs . u n til j|.says* f,lacs ll*:,| them try to tmrnrn* to r too d ig its of too number just as’ you- hoard- tltm m too tape re * cerder as# m$m t them out loud to tod 1* A fter tots you 0111 hear another six~dlgit number aad toe pros tours w ill h# repeated. Bo you understand tost you ere to dot to t*s tty a low preettoe - tr ia ls #

fo il ate assiittto to a grougiiig condition sod enet toetdfors gtodf ' toe d ig its of ■■%to sufiitof by twos <threes). I f you m ^m tm rn : a tee* demcy to group feto d ig its iti agy other way or to wmm&rn toes sepa* fsttoy* you-imi-st-resist and avoid using toeee other ' techniques* I t is very' Important tost you try to restobet the mustoof by grouping toe d ig its by twos (torees) . to an .example* i f you hoards*.the number 142873* you would remember $M as fourteen* twenty "eight* seventy^torms* Come h u gd re d ^ fo rty^ tw o , e ig h t te u d re d ^ e v e a ty * to fe e > o r-o a e ^ fo u r* two** eight*- eevea*toraa* |oue^four*too# eigti«-^erea*toree) e ither way as - iosg to you group the d ig its by twos (torees) • fa ilu re to follow- these Instructions would he toeatleg aad you would defeat the purpose of the experiment} therefore* your template cooperation Is mqm&zed to mmt® its success. Immediatoly a fte r hearlug toe number you are to read’toe

.Setter® that set before yenf .out Scud* a# .tepidly «® yen mm* to® are to s ta rt w ith a d iffe ren t row of Setter®- enelt time, to met s ta rt witti the same vm twice in' E^titosioj*. Ceetletse reading the letter® u n til the j | : says* wie c a ll,,| ■:thea ' t ry to remember the number *? you had grouped i t by. two® (threes) and.repeat i t loud to the i* After. , th is 'yen 'w ill hear another s lx^d ig ii number and the yteeeiSre w ill be repeated. 'So you understand what yen are. to dot betfs try a few praetie# tfia la *" ■■■,■■*