Advertisement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 605–608 | Cite as

Spatially distributed stimuli show little effect of recency with either visual or auditory presentation

  • Susan Karp Manning
  • Teresa Wiseman
  • Sergio Marini
  • Wilma Torres
Article
  • 638 Downloads

Abstract

The effect of recency-the superior recall of final as opposed to middle items in serial presentation—is usually greater for auditorily as opposed to visually presented stimuli. However, the standard method of presenting both visual and auditory stimuli consists of temporal presentation in a single location. Having used a new procedure, in which stimuli were spatially distributed, Battacchi, Pelamatti, and Umiltá (1990) reported a robust effect of visual recency in immediate serial recall, similar to that found with auditory stimuli. Their subjects were native speakers of Italian. To test and explain these findings, we performed three experiments with native speakers of English as subjects. The stimuli were letters of the alphabet and vowel-consonant syllables; presentations were both auditory and visual. The results suggest that the spatial distribution of stimuli does not produce a major recency effect in the visual modality and leads to a smaller recency effect with auditory stimuli than that usually found in the standard presentation condition. Finally, in Experiment 3, the use of native speakers of Italian as subjects demonstrated that the difference in the subjects’ language is not a factor in the discrepancy between our findings and those of Battacchi et al.

Keywords

Auditory Stimulus Serial Position Native Speaker Recency Effect Serial Recall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Battacchi, M., Pelamatti, G. M., & Umiltá, C. (1990). Is there a modality effect? Evidence for visual recency and suffix effects. Memory & Cognition, 18, 651–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, R., & Dodd, B. (1984). Aspects of hearing by eye. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 299–312). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Crowder, R. G., & Morton, J. (1969). Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS). Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Darwin, C. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (1974). Acoustic memory and the perception of speech. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frankish, C. (1989). Perceptual organization and precategorical acoustic storage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frick, R. W. (1988). Issues of representation and limited capacity in the auditory short-term store. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 213–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardiner, J. M. (1983). On recency and echoic memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 302, 267–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glenberg, A., & Swanson, N. G. (1986). A temporal distinctiveness model of recency and the modality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene, R. L. (1987). Stimulus suffixes and visual presentation. Memory & Cognition, 15, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene, R. L., & Crowder, R. G. (1984). Modality and suffix effects in the absence of auditory stimulation. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LeCompte, D. C. (1992). In search of a strong visual recency effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manning, S. K. (1977). Ratings of the auditory and visual similarity of consonants: Implications for research. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 9, 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manning, S. K., Koehler, L., & Hampton, S. (1990). The effects of recoding and presentation format on recency and suffix effects. Memory & Cognition, 18, 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manning, S. K., & Robinson, I. I. (1989). Recency and suffix effects as a function of auditory confusability and set size. American Journal of Psychology, 102, 495–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manning, S. K., & Schreier, H. (1988). Recency and suffix effects as a function of recall method. American Journal of Psychology, 101, 97–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Metcalfe, J., Glavanov, D., & Murdock, M. (1981). Spatial and temporal processing in the auditory and visual modalities. Memory & Cognition, 9, 351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murdock, B. B., Jr., & Walker, K. D. (1969). Modality effects in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8, 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nairne, J. S. (1988). A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall. Memory & Cognition, 16, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Karp Manning
    • 1
  • Teresa Wiseman
    • 1
  • Sergio Marini
    • 1
  • Wilma Torres
    • 1
  1. 1.Hunter College and the Graduate SchoolCity University of New YorkNew York

Personalised recommendations