Biomedical subjects

Matthew R Kelley

Publications and source records attributed to Matthew R Kelley.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Repeated questioning for order of events: disparate effects following logical versus random presentation.

In the present study, 72 college-age participants from an introductory psychology course viewed a series of 20 pictures depicting events surrounding a routine activity, i.e., eating at a cafeteria; these pictures were presented either in a logical order. e.g., enter cafeteria, pick up tray, stand in line, and select food, or in a random order. Three successive tests of free reconstruction of order indicated disparate effects of these conditions; random presentation produced significant forgetting of order information across tests, whereas logical presentation produced no change in performance across tests. Whereas randomly presented stimuli produced both reliable intertest recovery (reminiscence) and forgetting, neither result was observed following logical presentation. The implications of these data for eyewitness testimony for general theories of hypermnesia are discussed.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Remembering the forgotten? Reminiscence, hypermnesia and memory for order.

Three experiments established that repeated testing affects item and order retention differently: Hypermnesia was found with repeated free recall tests, whereas net performance declined significantly across successive free reconstruction of order tests. Overall order performance declined over tests under a variety of encoding conditions (pictures, words, and relational and item-specific processing) and retrieval conditions (intentional and incidental learning). Although net performance dropped across tests, participants did show reliable order recovery (reminiscence) between tests. The implications of these data for general theories of hypermnesia and order are discussed.

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↗