Free recall

Last updated

Free recall is a common task in the psychological study of memory. In this task, participants study a list of items on each trial, and then are prompted to recall the items in any order. [1] Items are usually presented one at a time for a short duration, and can be any of a number of nameable materials, although traditionally, words from a larger set are chosen. The recall period typically lasts a few minutes, and can involve spoken or written recall. The standard test involves the recall period starting immediately after the final list item; this can be referred to as immediate free recall (IFR) to distinguish it from delayed free recall (DFR). In delayed free recall, there is a short distraction period between the final list item and the start of the recall period. Both IFR and DFR have been used to test certain effects that appear during recall tests, such as the primacy effect and recency effect.

Contents

Methodology used in measuring performance

One of the basic measures of performance in the free recall task is the number of words recalled from a list, which varies with a number of factors, including the list length, the type of material studied, and any task used to process the words (e.g., a simple judgement). When one examines the probability of recall by the position of the item in the list (its serial position), one finds that the initial and terminal items in the list are better remembered than those in the middle (also known as the primacy and recency items, respectively). Primacy effects generally come from the idea that greater attention is devoted to items that appear at the beginning of presentation lists. Bennet B. Murdock [2] presents a classic study of serial position effects in free recall. In his experiment, Murdock used six groups of 103 participants. Each group was given different combinations of list lengths and presentation rates. Three of the groups were shown lists of ten, fifteen, and twenty words with a presentation rate of two seconds per word. The other three groups were shown lists of twenty, thirty, and forty words with a one-second presentation rate for each word. There were 80 lists in total that included randomly selected common English words. After the presentation of each list, subjects were asked to recall as many words as possible in any order. Results from the experiment showed that all groups expressed both primacy effects and recency effects. Recency effects were exhibited regardless of the length of the list, and it was strongest for the words in the last eight serial positions. The primacy effect extended over the first four serial positions. [2]

Another evidence of the recency effect is found in the way that participants initiate recall of a list: they most often start with terminal (recent) list items (an early description of the recency effect in the probability of first recall can be found in Hogan, 1975 [3] ). Recency effects come from the notion that terminal list items tend to be better recalled than other items. This particular effect has generated much controversy and experimentation due to the speculation about why items that are rehearsed less should be so well remembered. A standard explanation for these effects is that they represent output from primary memory, or the short-term memory buffer system. [4]

Recency effects show how well subjects can remember the last items relative to how well they remember the other items. Glenberg's theory can be used to determine the magnitude of the recency effect, depending on how effective the retrieval cues are for the last item relative to the other items. Several types of experiments can be done to test the recency effect for free recall. One experiment that is commonly used is the distractor-recall paradigm, as done by Rundu's

(1980). Another study that exhibits the recency effect during free recall is when subjects learn several different lists followed by recall tests, and then a final unexpected recall test at the end of the experiment where they are required to recall as many items as possible from all of the lists. Results show that participants tend to recall items from the more recent lists. [4]

Serial recall paradigm

Studies have also been done to address the best method for recalling lists of unrelated words. In contrast to free recall, another type of study is known as the serial recall paradigm, where participants are asked to recall the presented items in their correct order rather than the order that comes to mind at the time of testing, randomly. Experiments have shown that in comparison to free recall, the serial recall learning curve increases linearly with the number of trials. The purpose of a study by Bruner, Miller, and Zimmerman (1955) was to determine if this learning difference is a result of the order in which the participant sees the items, or if it is instead dependent on the order in which the participant is told to recall the items. The study involved three different conditions: serial recall, free recall with items to be recalled randomized before each trial, and free recall with the order of the items kept constant. The experiment tested nine college students on 18 series of words. In addition to the linear serial recall learning curve, it was found that more words are forgotten when recall is free than when it is serial. This study also supported the notion that the difference between the types of recall depends on the order in which the learner must recall the items, and not on the order in which the items are presented. [5]

Beyond examining the relative probability of particular items being recalled, one can examine the order in which items are retrieved during the recall period. When a participant successfully recalls an item from a set of studied items, there is a marked tendency for the next item recalled to come from neighboring positions in the study set, with an advantage for items that followed the recalled item over items that preceded it. This effect, known as the contiguity effect, was first characterized by Michael J. Kahana, [6] and has been shown to be robust across many free recall experiments. [7]

Subjective organization

Classic studies of free recall often focused on the multi-trial free recall paradigm, in which the same set of items appear on successive trials (although usually the order of the items is scrambled across trials). In this version of the paradigm, researchers would focus on how many trials it took to learn a certain proportion of the items. Tulving (1968) describes the phenomenon of subjective organization, in which words that are recalled successively during the first recall period also tend to be recalled successively during later recall periods. In addition to subjective organization, these multi-trial free recall paradigms are also used to analyze the effects of practice on recall tasks. Improvement in recall of items over multiple trials has been termed the learning-to-learn effect (LTL). To explore the results of practice on item recall, two experiments have been done to compare effects on free recall and ordered recall. The first experiment consisted of multiple presentations of words, and required the subjects to recall the lists by either ordered or free recall. The second experiment had multiple trials, where each trial consisted of the presentation of words followed by a recall test. Participants were given five trials for each of the lists. Results of the experiments showed that in order to produce the learning-to-learn effect in free recall, participants should be given multiple trials rather than multiple presentations. [8]

Understanding of neurological processes

Free recall studies have given yield to new understanding of neurological processes. In particular, the Dynamic Tagging Theory makes use of statistical data taken from such experiments in formulating a phenomenological explanation of short-term memory. George A. Miller wrote a widely known paper describing the limitations of memory and the power of categories to improve recall, especially in short-term memory. He popularized the short term memory limitation by calling it "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two".

Some brain regions that are most commonly utilized in free recall include the hippocampus, fusiform gyrus, and inferior prefrontal cortex. [9] In fact, greater activity in these brain regions while studying a list is linked to better subsequent recall. [10]

Related Research Articles

Long-term memory (LTM) is the stage of the Atkinson–Shiffrin memory model in which informative knowledge is held indefinitely. It is defined in contrast to short-term and working memory, which persist for only about 18 to 30 seconds. LTM is commonly labelled as "explicit memory", as well as "episodic memory," "semantic memory," "autobiographical memory," and "implicit memory".

Short-term memory is the capacity for holding a small amount of information in an active, readily available state for a short interval. For example, short-term memory holds a phone number that has just been recited. The duration of short-term memory is estimated to be on the order of seconds. The commonly cited capacity of 7 items, found in Miller's Law, has been superseded by 4±1 items. In contrast, long-term memory holds information indefinitely.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognition</span> Act or process of knowing

Cognition is the "mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses". It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and discover new knowledge.

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. Psychologists test these forms of recall as a way to study the memory processes of humans and animals. Two main theories of the process of recall are the two-stage theory and the theory of encoding specificity.

The interference theory is a theory regarding human memory. Interference occurs in learning. The notion is that memories encoded in long-term memory (LTM) are forgotten and cannot be retrieved into short-term memory (STM) because either memory could interfere with the other. There is an immense number of encoded memories within the storage of LTM. The challenge for memory retrieval is recalling the specific memory and working in the temporary workspace provided in STM. Retaining information regarding the relevant time of encoding memories into LTM influences interference strength. There are two types of interference effects: proactive and retroactive interference.

The spacing effect demonstrates that learning is more effective when study sessions are spaced out. This effect shows that more information is encoded into long-term memory by spaced study sessions, also known as spaced repetition or spaced presentation, than by massed presentation ("cramming").

Serial-position effect is the tendency of a person to recall the first and last items in a series best, and the middle items worst. The term was coined by Hermann Ebbinghaus through studies he performed on himself, and refers to the finding that recall accuracy varies as a function of an item's position within a study list. When asked to recall a list of items in any order, people tend to begin recall with the end of the list, recalling those items best. Among earlier list items, the first few items are recalled more frequently than the middle items.

Memory has the ability to encode, store and recall information. Memories give an organism the capability to learn and adapt from previous experiences as well as build relationships. Encoding allows a perceived item of use or interest to be converted into a construct that can be stored within the brain and recalled later from long-term memory. Working memory stores information for immediate use or manipulation, which is aided through hooking onto previously archived items already present in the long-term memory of an individual.

Selective amnesia is a type of amnesia in which the sufferer loses only certain parts of their memory. Common elements that may be forgotten are relationships, where they live, and certain special abilities and talents.

Articulatory suppression is the process of inhibiting memory performance by speaking while being presented with an item to remember. Most research demonstrates articulatory suppression by requiring an individual to repeatedly say an irrelevant speech sound out loud while being presented with a list of words to recall shortly after. The individual experiences four stages when repeating the irrelevant sound: the intention to speak, programming the speech, articulating the sound or word, and receiving auditory feedback.

The modality effect is a term used in experimental psychology, most often in the fields dealing with memory and learning, to refer to how learner performance depends on the presentation mode of studied items.

The California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) is one of the most widely used neuropsychological tests in North America. As an instrument, it represents a relatively new approach to clinical psychology and the cognitive science of memory. It measures episodic verbal learning and memory, and demonstrates sensitivity to a range of clinical conditions. The test does this by attempting to link memory deficits with impaired performance on specific tasks. It assesses encoding, recall and recognition in a single modality of item presentation (auditory-verbal). The CVLT is considered to be a more sensitive measure of episodic memory than other verbal learning tests. It was designed to not only measure how much a subject learned, but also reveal strategies employed and the types of errors made. The CVLT indexes free and cued recall, serial position effects, semantic clustering, intrusions, interference and recognition. Delis et al. (1994) released the California Verbal Learning Test for Children (CVLT-C). The California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II) is an updated version of the original CVLT, which has been standardized and provides normative data.

Indirect memory tests assess the retention of information without direct reference to the source of information. Participants are given tasks designed to elicit knowledge that was acquired incidentally or unconsciously and is evident when performance shows greater inclination towards items initially presented than new items. Performance on indirect tests may reflect contributions of implicit memory, the effects of priming, a preference to respond to previously experienced stimuli over novel stimuli. Types of indirect memory tests include the implicit association test, the lexical decision task, the word stem completion task, artificial grammar learning, word fragment completion, and the serial reaction time task.

There is evidence suggesting that different processes are involved in remembering something versus knowing whether it is familiar. It appears that "remembering" and "knowing" represent relatively different characteristics of memory as well as reflect different ways of using memory.

In cognitive psychology, a recall test is a test of memory of mind in which participants are presented with stimuli and then, after a delay, are asked to remember as many of the stimuli as possible. Memory performance can be indicated by measuring the percentage of stimuli the participant was able to recall. An example of this would be studying a list of 10 words and later recalling 5 of them. This is a 50 percent recall. Participants' responses also may be analyzed to determine if there is a pattern in the way items are being recalled from memory. For example, if participants are given a list consisting of types of vegetables and types of fruit, their recall can be assessed to determine whether they grouped vegetables together and fruits together. Recall is also involved when a person is asked to recollect life events, such as graduating high school, or to recall facts they have learned, such as the capital of Florida.

Difference due to memory (Dm) indexes differences in neural activity during the study phase of an experiment for items that subsequently are remembered compared to items that are later forgotten. It is mainly discussed as an event-related potential (ERP) effect that appears in studies employing a subsequent memory paradigm, in which ERPs are recorded when a participant is studying a list of materials and trials are sorted as a function of whether they go on to be remembered or not in the test phase. For meaningful study material, such as words or line drawings, items that are subsequently remembered typically elicit a more positive waveform during the study phase. This difference typically occurs in the range of 400–800 milliseconds (ms) and is generally greatest over centro-parietal recording sites, although these characteristics are modulated by many factors.

The Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm is a procedure in cognitive psychology used to study false memory in humans. The procedure was pioneered by James Deese in 1959, but it was not until Henry L. Roediger III and Kathleen McDermott extended the line of research in 1995 that the paradigm became popular. The procedure typically involves the oral presentation of a list of related words and then requires the subject to remember as many words from the list as possible. Typical results show that subjects recall a related but absent word, known as a 'lure', with the same frequency as other presented words. When asked about their experience after the test, about half of all participants report that they are sure that they remember hearing the lure, indicating a false memory – a memory for an event that never occurred.

Serial memory processing is the act of attending to and processing one item at a time. This is usually contrasted against parallel memory processing, which is the act of attending to and processing all items simultaneously.

Kindness priming is an affect-dependent cognitive effect in which subjects will display a positive affect following exposure to kindness.

Hedwig von Restorff is best known for her discovery of the isolation effect that bears her name.

References

  1. ↑ Bower, Gordon H. (2000). A Brief History of Memory Research. The Oxford Handbook of Memory. (3)
  2. 1 2 Murdock, Bennet B. (1962). "The serial position effect of free recall". Journal of Experimental Psychology 64 (5): 482–488.
  3. ↑ Hogan, Robert M.; Hogan, Mary M. (1975). "Structural and transient components of memory" (PDF). Memory & Cognition. 3 (2): 210–215. doi:10.3758/BF03212899. PMID   21287061. S2CID   12393403 – via Springer.
  4. 1 2 Greene, Robert L. (1986). "Sources of recency effects in free recall". Psychological Bulletin 99 (2): 221–28.
  5. ↑ Waugh, Nancy C. (1961). "Free versus serial recall". Journal of Experimental Psychology 62 (5): 496–502.
  6. ↑ Kahana, Michael J. (1996). "Associative retrieval processes in free recall". Memory & Cognition 24: 103–9.
  7. ↑ Healey, M. K., Long, N. M., & Kahana, M. J. (2019). Contiguity in episodic memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 26(3), 699-720.
  8. ↑ Dallet, Kent M. (1963). "Practice effects in free and ordered recall". Journal of Experimental Psychology 66 (1): 65–71
  9. ↑ Haberlandt, Karl (2011), "Free Recall", in Kreutzer, Jeffrey S.; DeLuca, John; Caplan, Bruce (eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1079–1080, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1124, ISBN   978-0-387-79948-3 , retrieved April 20, 2021
  10. ↑ Emilien, Gérard (2004). Alzheimer Disease : Neuropsychology and Pharmacology. Cécile Durlach, Kenneth Lloyd Minaker, Bengt Winblad, Serge Gauthier, Jean-Marie Maloteaux. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel. ISBN   978-3-0348-7842-5. OCLC   840290225.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.