Biomedical subjects

Aimée M Surprenant

Publications and source records attributed to Aimée M Surprenant.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

The distinctiveness of the word-length effect.

The authors report 2 experiments that compare the serial recall of pure lists of long words, pure lists of short words, and lists of long or short words containing just a single isolated word of a different length. In both experiments for pure lists, there was a substantial recall advantage for short words; the isolated words were recalled better than other words in the same list, and there was a reverse word-length effect: Isolated long words were recalled better than isolated short words. These results contradict models that seek to explain the word-length effect in terms of list-based accounts of rehearsal speed or in terms of item-based effects (such as difficulty of assembling items).

Adult↗

PubMed2006

The syllable-based word length effect and stimulus set specificity.

The word length effect is the finding that a list of items that take less time to pronounce is better recalled on an immediate serial recall test than an otherwise equivalent list of items that take more time to pronounce. Contrary to the predictions of all major models of the word length effect, Hulme, Suprenant, Bireta, Stuart, and Neath (2004) found that short and long items presented within the same list were recalled equally as well as short items presented in lists of just short items. Different results were reported by Cowan, Baddeley, Elliot, and Norris (2003), who found that mixed lists were recalled worse than pure short lists, but better than pure long lists. The experiments reported here suggest that the different empirical findings are due to properties of the stimulus sets used: one stimulus set produces results that replicate Cowan et al., whereas all other sets tested so far yield results that replicate Hulme et al.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression.

Larsen and Baddeley (2003) examine whether the disruption caused by articulatory suppression on immediate memory tasks is similar to or different from the disruption caused by irrelevant speech. Based on experiments in which they test whether the phonological similarity effect is present or absent, they conclude that articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech are different. We assessed whether articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech are similar or different by correlating the disruption each causes. A significant correlation obtained, indicating a relation between the two. These apparently different conclusions can be readily resolved by adopting the view that articulatory suppression, irrelevant speech, and many other factors vary in the degree to which they are likely to cause subjects to abandon reliance on phonological/acoustic cues in particular tasks.

Auditory Perception↗

PubMed2003

The time-based word length effect and stimulus set specificity.

The word length effect is the finding that short items are remembered better than long items on immediate serial recall tests. The time-based word length effect refers to this finding when the lists comprise items that vary only in pronunciation time. Three experiments compared recall of three different sets of disyllabic words that differed systematically only in spoken duration. One set showed a word length effect, one set showed no effect of word length, and the third showed a reverse word length effect, with long words recalled better than short. A new fourth set of words was created, and it also failed to yield a time-based word length effect. Because all four experiments used the same methodologyand varied only the stimulus sets, it is argued that the time-based word length effect is not robust and as such poses problems for models based on the phonological loop.

Humans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Fill-in and infill errors in order memory.

Many current models of memory are specified with enough detail to make predictions about patterns of errors in memory tasks. However, there are often not enough empirical data available to test these predictions. We report two experiments that examine the relative frequency of fill-in and infill errors. In immediate serial recall tasks, subjects sometimes incorrectly recall item N too soon, placing it in position N-1. The error of interest is which item is recalled after this initial mistake. A fill-in error is the tendency to recall item N-1 next, whereas an infill error is the tendency to recall item N+1 next. Both experiments reveal more fill-in than infill errors, not only overall but at each possible error location throughout the list. The overall ratio is approximately 2:1. We conclude that none of the currently existing models adequately accounts for fill-in and infill errors.

Acoustic Stimulation↗