Set-size effects in primary memory: An age-related capacity limitation?
Tóm tắt
Set size was varied as a factor in the primary memory paradigm developed by Wickens and colleagues (Wickens, Moody, & Dow, 1981; Wickens, Moody, & Vidulich, 1985). In Experiment 1, using adults and teenagers, no proactive interference (PI) was observed at set size 4, consistent with previous research, but PI was observed at set size 10. In Experiment 2, with adults, PI was observed at set sizes 6, 8, and 10, but not at set size 4. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that sets of more than 4 items overload primary memory, so that some items have to be retrieved from secondary memory. In Experiment 3, 8- to 9-year-olds were used with set sizes of 2 and 4. Proactive interference was observed with the larger, but not with the smaller, set. This suggests that primary memory was overloaded by 4 items at this age, indicating that its capacity increases with age.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baddeley, A. (1981). The concept of working memory: A view of its current state and probable future development.Cognition,10, 17–23.
Baddeley, A. D., &Ecob, J. R. (1973). Reaction time and short-term memory: Implications of repetition effects for the high-speed exhaustive scan hypothesis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 229–240.
Baddeley, A. D., &Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., &Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 575–589.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items m 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80(3, Pt. 2).
Case, R. (1985).Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic Press.
Dempster, F. N. (1981). Memory span: Sources of individual and developmental differences.Psychological Bulletin,89, 63–100.
Flexser, A. J. (1978). Long-term recognition latencies under rehearsalcontrolled conditions: Do list-length effects depend on active memory?Journal of Experimental Psychology,4, 47–54.
Gardiner, J. M., Craik, F. I. M., &Birtwhistle, J. (1972). Retrieval cues and release from proactive inhibition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 778–783.
Halford, G. S., Maybery, M. T., &Bain, J. D. (1986). Capacity limitations in children’s reasoning: A dual task approach.Child Development,57, 616–627.
Humphreys, M. S., Lynch, M. J., Revelle, W., &Hall, J. W. (1983). Individual differences tn short-term memory. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck,Individual differences in cognition (pp. 35–64). New York: Academic Press.
James, W. (1890).Principles of psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kail, R. (1986). Sources of age differences in speed of processing.Child Development,57, 969–987.
Klapp, S. T., Marshburn, E. A., &Lester, P. T. (1983). Short-term memory does not involve the “working memory” of information processing: The demise of a common assumption.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112, 240–264.
Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information.Psychological Review,89, 609–626.
Pike, R., Dalgleish, L., &Wright, J. (1977). A multiple-observations model for response latency and the latencies of correct and incorrect responses in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,5, 580–589.
Rumelhart, D. E., &McClelland, J. L. (Eds.). (1986).Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Schweickert, R., &Boruff, B. (1986). Short-term memory capacity: Magic number or magic spell?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 419–425.
Standing, L., Bond, B., Smith, P., &Isley, C. (1980). Is the immediate memory span determined by subvocalization rate?British Journal of Psychology,71, 525–539.
Sternberg, S. (1975). Memory scanning: New findings and current controversies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,27, 1–32.
Watkins, O. G., &Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive interference as a cue-overload effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,104, 442–452.
Watkins, D. D., Moody, M. J., &Dow, R. (1981). The nature and timing of the retrieval process and of interference effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 1–20.
Wickens, D. D., Moody, M. J., &Vidulich, M. (1985). Retrieval time as a function of memory set size, type of probes, and interference in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,11, 154–164.