Ranschburg effect

Last updated
Number sequence Numbers3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 17 18.jpg
Number sequence

The Ranschburg effect, sometimes referred to as Ranschburg inhibition, is a psychological theory which refers to the substandard recall of repeated items, or listed items, in a short sequence. [1] According to a 1973 paper in the Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, the Ranschburg effect is interpreted as a result of a restricted guessing strategy that excludes repetitions of remembered items as possible responses. [2] This term is also described as the deterioration in memory performance when items are repeated in a list of items to be remembered. [3] The Ranschburg effect can also be referred to as repetition inhibition, which should not be mistaken for repetition blindness, which refers to the failure or inability to recall repeated items from the short-term memory when sequences are presented rapidly. [4]

Contents

The Ranschburg effect is named after Hungarian psychiatrist Paul Ranschburg  [ Wikidata ], who reported the phenomenon in 1901. [5] The bulk of studies of the Ranschburg effect use lists that range from 8 to 10 digits with only one repeated element. [6] A study in The Psychology of Ageing: An Introduction found that Ranschburg effect is greater among older than younger adults since it is suggested that the inhibitory processes act against repeating items. [3]

General overview of research

Early studies of the Ranschburg effect and its outcomes regarding immediate recall suggested that repeated items impaired recall performance regardless of the position of such items within a sequence. [7] Modern studies indicate that positioning of repeated items within a sequence does influence recall performance, where repeated items positioned adjacently within a sequence demonstrate better recall performance than repeated items that are not positioned adjacently. [7] In some experimental instances, sequential presentation of the items was used rather than simultaneous presentation, where both presentation methods report poorer recall of repeated items than non-repeated items. [7] When testing the presence of the Ranschburg effect, major procedural differences suggest the possibility of two separate Ranschburg effects. [7] When repeated items within a sequence are positioned adjacently, an ‘isolation’ effect occurs as a subject is able to recall each repeated item within a context of different non repeated items. [7] This methodological difference when presenting repeated items suggests the possible existence of two separate Ranschburg effects, however it is essentially two method variants as opposed to separate effects. [7] Even when a subject is aware that a sequence may contain a repeated item, the Ranschburg effect can still be present. [8]

Background

Paul Ranschburg  [ Wikidata ] was a Hungarian psychologist born in Győr, Hungary on January 3, 1870. [9] Ranschburg came from an orthodox rabbinate Jewish family and was raised in western Hungary. [10]   Ranschburg studied at the University of Budapest and received his M.D. in 1894, and founded a psychological laboratory at the Psychiatric Clinic, which later became an independent state institution in 1905. [9]  Ranschburg established the Psycho-Physiological laboratory within the Nervous Disease Department of the Medical Faculty in Budapest in 1899, and was a founding member of the Hungarian Child Study Association and head of the Experimental Psychology Division. [10] Ranschburg primarily researched memory, specifically relating to neurology and psychopathology. Ranschburg received international attention following the publication of his paper about the Ranschburg effect in 1902, which detailed the new phenomenon he had observed that specified homogenous inhibition. [10] Ranschburg first described the phenomenon as a ‘homogenous inhibition’ that refers to difficulty in memory recall when presented with similar or homogenous elements in a learning list. [10] Ranschburg’s scientific achievements coincide with the transitional period of psychology occurring when experimental methods were being developed and ideas of behaviourism, Gestalt theory and psychoanalysis were emerging. [9]

Findings

The Ranschburg effect can be attributed to a subject’s failure to detect repeated items, and the application of inappropriate guessing strategies when attempting to improve short-term memory recall performance. [2]

Guessing strategies

Guessing strategies are utilised by a subject in order to maximise memory span and improve overall recall performance. [2]   The Ranschburg effect is eliminated when subjects are instructed to avoid guessing strategies, however this causes the validity and reliability of the test to also become eliminated. [1] Repetition inhibition, otherwise known as the presence of the Ranschburg effect, can be produced by output interference and guessing strategies. [4]

The poorer recall of repeated items in a short sequence that occurs when the Ranschburg effect is present is primarily understood as being attributed to the result of restricted guessing strategies. [2] Such guessing strategies disregard the repetition of remembered items as possible responses, and therefore result in poorer memory recall when items are repeated in sequences. [2] If all subjects employed the same guessing strategy of restricting guesses to the set of items they had not already recalled, they would be unable to fully recount the item sequence correctly. [2] This signifies the result of applying an inappropriate guessing strategy when attempting to improve short-term memory recall performance of a sequence containing repeated items.

Sequence configuration

The presence of the Ranschburg effect decreases correlatively as set size increases, suggesting that the extent of the effect is dependent on improved performance on non-repeated items. [2] Situational experience of the subjects when testing the Ranschburg effect also suggests that guessing strategies and biases can be modified. [2] The omission or incorrect recall of a repeated item within a sequence of otherwise different items results in the presence of the Ranschburg effect. [8] Serial recall of repeated items within the short-term memory is more accurate when repeated items are positioned in close proximity within a sequence than when items are positioned far apart. [4] Repeated items positioned at the beginning or end of a sequence also improves the rate of detection and absence of the Ranschburg effect. [4] When repeated items within a sequence are separated by two or more intervening items, there are reports that there is a significant decline in the recall accuracy of the repeated item, and the Ranschburg effect is produced. [11] When repeated items are positioned adjacently to one another, recall facilitation is significantly improved. [11]

Age

The Ranschburg effect is more common in older adults than young adults, with greater response suppression and repetition inhibition results increasing with age. [12] Repetition of an item within a list of items is also shown to impair immediate serial recall of a list of items within subjects. [1] When comparing item recall of sequences with a repeated item and sequences with no repeated items, the recall performance was poorer in sequences with a repeated item than sequences with all different items. [13] When repeated items occur within a sequence, recall of the second repeated item is generally poorer than first repeated item. [7] Poorer recall performance in sequences with repeated items suggests that such experimental conditions have a perceptual or memorial basis, however Ranschburg’s work does not allow for a differentiation between the two. [13] The presence of the Ranschburg effect is more likely to increase when subjects are presented with items positioned in the middle of a sequence rather than items positioned at the ends of the lists. [2]

Tagging

Noting a repeated item during the encoding process can be referred to as tagging, and is more likely to occur when repeated items are positioned next to each other or close together. [4] Specifically, the immediate repetition of an item can be tagged within the short-term memory in order to increase the probability of accurately recalling the repetition, demonstrating the impact that the position of the repeated items within a sequence can have. [4] Although subjects may correctly encode the repetition of an item within a sequence, they do not necessarily consciously notice it. [4] This results in the omission of the second repetition of an item within a sequence, and results in the presence of the Ranschburg effect. When presented with verbal stimuli, the Ranschburg effect is produced by a response suppression mechanism. [11] The suppression mechanism within the short-term memory is based on the premise that items appearing early within a sequence have the highest activation levels when prompting recall. [11] Items that possess high activation are the items are recalled first when recalling a sequence, which is also referred to as competitive queuing within the short-term memory. [11] The suppression mechanism produces the recall of items with lower activation levels. [11]   The presence of a repetition tagging mechanism is also used when recalling repeated items within verbal stimuli. [11]

Response suppression rates are improved when the duration of the presentation of a sequence is longer. [11] When an item is suppressed, the recall of its second occurrence is inhibited. [11] This is due to the failure to tag the repeated item within the short-term memory as a repeated item, and therefore facilitates the Ranschburg effect. This suggests that the Ranschburg effect is produced within the retrieval stage of the items, not the encoding stage.

Short-term memory input and output

Repetition inhibition rests on the basic theory that repeated items within a sequence face a negative bias against repetition during recall. [4] When subject resort to guessing strategies in an attempt to improve short-term recall, there is a negative implication for repeated items as there is a natural tendency or reluctance for people to repeat themselves. [4] When a subject detects the event of a repetition but is unable to recall which item was repeated, they can resort to guessing. When a subject fails to accurately retrieve or guess the second occurrence of a repeated item, repetition inhibition occurs. Retrieval and guessing failures suggest the presence of a response suppression during the recall stage. [4] Unless a subject is able to accurately detect, identify and remember the second occurrence of a repeated item, the Ranschburg effect is present. Input and output processes within the short-term memory can influence the production or presence of the Ranschburg effect. [8] During the input process of information within the short-term memory, the encoding, attentional, and perceptual processes play an important role in the ability to accurately output and recall a sequence. [8] Failure to appropriately encode or perceive a repeated item can produce the Ranschburg effect. Output processes within the short-term memory include memory and retrieval, and can also contribute substantially to the production of the Ranschburg effect. [8]

Due to the correlative relationship between output interference and the production of the Ranschburg effect, output interference is demonstrated to be a significant contributor to recall inhibition. [8] This correlation suggests that any technique or strategy that reduces output interference should also reduce the likelihood of the Ranschburg effect occurring. This indicates that Ranschburg effect functions as a production of the retrieval procedure. [8] The inhibitory effects of intraserial repetition, otherwise known as the Ranschburg effect, can therefore be reduced through minimising output interference.

Experimental conditions

In order to demonstrate the Ranschburg effect, a subject is briefly presented with a sequential list of stimuli containing a repeated item and instructed to recall them. [13] When the subject is asked to reproduce the items in a serial order, poor recall indicates the Ranschburg effect. [13] Sequences generally contain between six and ten stimuli items, where the inclusion of repeated items is correlative with prompting the Ranschburg effect. [13] Stimuli items can include digits, letters and words, with digits being the original item used during the development of the Ranschburg effect theory. [13]   Subjects are tested individually, and are asked to complete several recall sequences. [11]

Repetition facilitation and repetition inhibition are robust, where the temporal conditions of sequence presentation impacts the probability and accuracy of detecting repeated items. [4] This can be attributed to an automatic suppression of previously presented items, and a bias against guessing repeated items. [4] A subject’s ability to detect a repeated item within a sequence is necessary for repetition facilitation, where the failure to detect a repeated item is a result of repetition inhibition. [4]   In order to overcome repetition inhibition, the detection of the repeated item must be consciously noticed during presentation, as well as remembering which specific item was repeated when recalling the sequence. Presentation rate refers to speed at which items within a sequence are presented. Presentation modality refers to the positioning of such items within a sequence, specifically items that are repeated.

Related Research Articles

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.

In cognitive psychology, chunking is a process by which small individual pieces of a set of information are bound together to create a meaningful whole later on in memory. The chunks, by which the information is grouped, are meant to improve short-term retention of the material, thus bypassing the limited capacity of working memory and allowing the working memory to be more efficient. A chunk is a collection of basic units that are strongly associated with one another, and have been grouped together and stored in a person's memory. These chunks can be retrieved easily due to their coherent grouping. It is believed that individuals create higher-order cognitive representations of the items within the chunk. The items are more easily remembered as a group than as the individual items themselves. These chunks can be highly subjective because they rely on an individual's perceptions and past experiences, which are linked to the information set. The size of the chunks generally ranges from two to six items but often differs based on language and culture.

Baddeley's model of working memory is a model of human memory proposed by Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch in 1974, in an attempt to present a more accurate model of primary memory. Working memory splits primary memory into multiple components, rather than considering it to be a single, unified construct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subvocalization</span> Internal process while reading

Subvocalization, or silent speech, is the internal speech typically made when reading; it provides the sound of the word as it is read. This is a natural process when reading and it helps the mind to access meanings to comprehend and remember what is read, potentially reducing cognitive load.

Repetition blindness (RB) is a phenomenon observed in rapid serial visual presentation. People are sometimes poor at recognizing when things happen twice. Repetition blindness is the failure to recognize a second happening of a visual display. The two displays are shown sequentially, possibly with other stimuli displays in between. Each display is only shortly shown, usually for about 150 milliseconds. If stimuli are shown in between, RB can occur in a time interval up to 600 milliseconds. Without other stimuli displayed in between the two repeated stimuli, RB only lasts about 250 milliseconds. Repetition blindness tasks usually are words in lists and in sentences. They are called phonologically similar items. There are also pictures, and words that include pictures. An example of this is a picture of the sun and the word sun. The most popular task used to examine repetition blindness is to show words one after another on a screen fast in which participants must recall the words that they saw. This task is known as the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Repetition blindness is present if missing the second word creates an inaccurate sentence. An example of this is "When she spilled the ink there was ink all over.” An RSVP sequence participants will recall seeing "When she spilled the ink there was all over." However, they are missing the second occurrence of "ink". This finding supports that people are "blind" for the second occurrence of a repetitive item in an RSVP series. For example, a subject's chances of correctly reporting both appearances of the word "cat" in the RSVP stream "dog mouse cat elephant cat snake" are lower than their chances of reporting the third and fifth words in the stream "dog mouse cat elephant pig snake".

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.

In psychology and neuroscience, memory span is the longest list of items that a person can repeat back in correct order immediately after presentation on 50% of all trials. Items may include words, numbers, or letters. The task is known as digit span when numbers are used. Memory span is a common measure of working memory and short-term memory. It is also a component of cognitive ability tests such as the WAIS. Backward memory span is a more challenging variation which involves recalling items in reverse order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative priming</span> Initial stimulus inhibits response to subsequent stimulus

Negative priming is an implicit memory effect in which prior exposure to a stimulus unfavorably influences the response to the same stimulus. It falls under the category of priming, which refers to the change in the response towards a stimulus due to a subconscious memory effect. Negative priming describes the slow and error-prone reaction to a stimulus that is previously ignored. For example, a subject may be imagined trying to pick a red pen from a pen holder. The red pen becomes the target of attention, so the subject responds by moving their hand towards it. At this time, they mentally block out all other pens as distractors to aid in closing in on just the red pen. After repeatedly picking the red pen over the others, switching to the blue pen results in a momentary delay picking the pen out. The slow reaction due to the change of the distractor stimulus to target stimulus is called the negative priming effect.

In mental memory, storage is one of three fundamental stages along with encoding and retrieval. Memory is the process of storing and recalling information that was previously acquired. Storing refers to the process of placing newly acquired information into memory, which is modified in the brain for easier storage. Encoding this information makes the process of retrieval easier for the brain where it can be recalled and brought into conscious thinking. Modern memory psychology differentiates between the two distinct types of memory storage: short-term memory and long-term memory. Several models of memory have been proposed over the past century, some of them suggesting different relationships between short- and long-term memory to account for different ways of storing memory.

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.

Serial reaction time (SRT) is a commonly used parameter in the measurement of unconscious learning processes. This parameter is operationalised through a SRT task, in which participants are asked to repeatedly respond to a fixed set of stimuli in which each cue signals that a particular response needs to be made. Unbeknownst to the participant, there are probabilities governing the occurrence of the cues as they appear in both a repeated sequence and randomised order, thus required responses following one cue have some predictability, influencing reaction-time. As a result, reaction-time to these cues becomes increasingly fast as subjects learn and utilise these transition probabilities.

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.

Distributed practice is a learning strategy, where practice is broken up into a number of short sessions over a longer period of time. Humans and other animals learn items in a list more effectively when they are studied in several sessions spread out over a long period of time, rather than studied repeatedly in a short period of time, a phenomenon called the spacing effect. The opposite, massed practice, consists of fewer, longer training sessions and is generally a less effective method of learning. For example, when studying for an exam, dispersing your studying more frequently over a larger period of time will result in more effective learning than intense study the night before.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Associative interference</span>

Associative interference is a cognitive theory established on the concept of associative learning, which suggests that the brain links related elements. When one element is stimulated, its associates can also be activated. The most known study demonstrating the credibility of this concept was Pavlov's experiment in 1927 which was later developed into the learning procedure known as classical conditioning.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Greene, R. L. (May 1991). "The Ranschburg effect: the role of guessing strategies". Memory & Cognition. 19 (3): 313–317. doi: 10.3758/BF03211155 . ISSN   0090-502X. PMID   1861617.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hinrichs, James V.; Mewaldt, Steven P.; Redding, Janet (1973-02-01). "The ranschburg effect: Repetition and guessing factors in short-term memory". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 12 (1): 64–75. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80061-1.
  3. 1 2 Stuart-Hamilton, Ian (2006). The Psychology of Ageing: An Introduction, Fourth Edition. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 104. ISBN   9781843104261.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Henson, Richard N. A. (1998). "Item repetition in short-term memory: Ranschburg repeated". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 24 (5): 1162–1181. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1162. ISSN   1939-1285. PMID   9747528.
  5. ↑ Colman, Andrew M. (2015). A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 104. ISBN   9780191057847.
  6. ↑ Sternberg, Robert (1999). The Nature of Cognition. MIT Press. p. 335. ISBN   9780262692120.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jahnke, John C.; Bower, Ray E. (1986). "Are There Two Ranschburg Effects?". The American Journal of Psychology. 99 (2): 275. doi:10.2307/1422279. ISSN   0002-9556. JSTOR   1422279.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Harris, Connie J.; Jahnke, John C. (1972). "Effect of partial recall on the Ranschburg phenomenon". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 93 (1): 118–122. doi:10.1037/h0032491. ISSN   0022-1015.
  9. 1 2 3 Schiller, Dan (2017-04-20). "Networked Militarization". University of Illinois Press. 1. doi:10.5406/illinois/9780252038761.003.0004.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Szokolszky, Ágnes (June 2016). "Hungarian psychology in context. Reclaiming the past" (PDF). Hungarian Studies. 30 (1): 17–55. doi:10.1556/044.2016.30.1.2. ISSN   0236-6568.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Roe, Daisy; Miles, Christopher; Johnson, Andrew J. (2017-07-03). "Tactile Ranschburg effects: facilitation and inhibitory repetition effects analogous to verbal memory" (PDF). Memory. 25 (6): 793–799. doi:10.1080/09658211.2016.1222443. ISSN   0965-8211. PMID   27556958. S2CID   4307910.
  12. ↑ Maylor, Elizabeth A.; Henson, Richard N. A. (2000). "Aging and the Ranschburg effect: No evidence of reduced response suppression in old age". Psychology and Aging. 15 (4): 657–670. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.15.4.657. ISSN   1939-1498. PMID   11144325.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jahnke, John C. (1969). "The Ranschburg effect". Psychological Review. 76 (6): 592–605. doi:10.1037/h0028148. ISSN   0033-295X.
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.