Ordering and Reordering in the Auditory and Visual Modalities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Memory & Cognition 1985, 13 (5), 435-441 Ordering and reordering in the auditory and visual modalities JANET METCALFE and DONALD SHARPE University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada This study investigates the hypothesis that the modality effect (i.e., the often-found recall advantage of the last few items presented in the auditory- rather than visual-input modality) is attributable to a directional auditory trace. Such a directional trace should help perfor mance of forward item-to-item recall, but should hurt performance if mental reordering is re quired. However, it was found in our Experiment 1 that mental item-to-item reordering of the materials did not affect the modality effect. In Experiment 2, strict control was exercised over the order of recall of chunks of items, as well as over the order of recall within chunks. It was found that the item-to-item reordering of the materials had little effect on the modality effect. However, the larger scale order of recall of the chunks had a large effect on the modality effect. If recall was in a forward order (i.e., first chunk, second chunk, third chunk), there was a dra matic superiority of the auditory materials on the last chunk. If the recall order was backward (third chunk, second chunk, first chunk), the modality effect was inconsequential. These results suggest that the modality effect is related to access to large memorial units rather than to item to-item associations. Many experiments investigating the role of input mo item of the list. This output-order performance might dality on human memory find that the last few items reflect differences in the directional format of the stored presented are better retained with auditory- rather than information. Third, Nilsson, Wright, and Murdock (1979) with visual-presentation modality (Craik, 1969; Crowder found that, when subjects were precued to recall in either & Morton, 1969; see Penney, 1975, for a review). The a modified forward (auditory-like) order or a backward present experiments investigate the possibility that direc (visual-like) order, the extent of the modality effect was tion of recall is important for this effect. As Drewnowski reduced, as compared to a control condition in which sub (1980) noted, auditory input may result in an obligatory jects were allowed to free recall. Although it is not obvi forward-directional trace. Such a trace could explain the ous from the directional auditory trace hypothesis why modality effect because it might facilitate forward recall the auditory-like recall order should help performance and perhaps have most impact on the recency items. when the input had been visual, the decrement in the mo A number of experimental findings are consistent with dality effect with backward recall fits nicely with the the idea of a directional auditory trace. First, the modal hypothesis. Fourth, whereas Madigan (1971) found the ity effect is usually studied with forward-serial recall or usual modality effect with forward-serial recall, the mo with free recall, both types of recall for which a forward dality effect disappeared with backward-serial recall. obligatory trace could improve performance. Second, Fifth, Experiment 3 by Nilsson (1979) showed that, when Nilsson, Wright, and Murdock (1975) found that, in free critical to-be-remembered words were presented succes recall, the order of output differs depending upon the in sively in a list, a modality effect was obtained, but when put modality. With auditory input, subjects tend to recall the critical words were randomly scattered throughout the the recency items first in a forward order, starting several list, no modality effect was found. These results are con items from the end of the list. With visual input, subjects sistent with a directional trace insofar as the cuing func tend to recall in a backward order, starting with the last tion of such a trace should be helpful only if the to-be remembered words are adjacent in memory, and may otherwise be harmful to performance. We wish to thank Elizabeth Bjork, Robert Bjork. and Eric Eich for Finally, Metcalfe, Glavanov, and Murdock (1981) have helpful discussions related to this article. Judith Goldberg provided ex shown that, although auditory superiority results when perimental assistance. We also wish to thank Emily Howard for her help in the presentation of some of the results from Experiment 1 to the An subjects are required to recall in a temporal order within nual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Ana a chunk of words, visual superiority results when sub heim, CA. 1983. This research was facilitated by a Natural Sciences jects are required to recall in a spatial order which, by and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) postdoctoral the design of the experiment, is orthogonal to the tem fellowship, and by NSERC Grant A0505 to the first author. Requests poral order. The most obvious interpretation of these for reprints should be sent to J. Metcalfe, Department of Psychology. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. results is that there is an affinity between auditory presen V6T lW5. tation and temporal recall, and an affinity between visual 435 Copyright 1985 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 436 METCALFE AND SHARPE presentation and spatial recall. Although this interpreta be written in the rightmost blank. In the RO condition, subjects tion is intuitively compelling, an equally viable interpre were told that for each chunk, the one-syllable word should be writ tation of the results rests on the idea of a directional au ten in the leftmost blank, the two-syllable word in the center blank, ditory trace. It may be that, in order to perform the spatial and the three-syllable word in the right blank. Subjects read the words on the flashcards, either silently for the visual conditions, task, subjects had to mentally reorder the materials from or aloud for the auditory conditions. After list presentation, sub the temporal order. Ifthe auditory trace were intrinsically jects immediately began written recall. They were allowed a maxi forward directional (and the visual trace were not), this mum of 2 min to recall each list, but no subject needed that much reordering alone would be sufficient to produce the audi time. Subjects could go back at the end of list recall to fill in miss tory deficit in the spatial case. This argument states that ing items that they had not recalled in the initial pass through the list. Such items were rare, were marked as such, and are not in the spatial nature of the task in Metcalfe et al. 's (1981) cluded in any of the analyses that will be presented in this paper. study had little to do with the results. Rather, what may Each subject received 24 lists altogether, 6 in each of the four major have been critical was the fact that subjects had to reorder treatment combinations-auditory temporal, visual temporal, au the materials in one condition (resulting in poor auditory ditory reordered, and visual reordered. Subjects were tested in performance) and not in the other (resulting in a modal dividually. Materials. The materials for this experiment consisted of a set ity effect). of one-, two-, and three-syllable words chosen from Thorndike and Lorge's (1944) norms to be "A" words (i.e., with a frequency of EXPERIMENT 1 50 to 99 per million). Homophones, contractions, and proper nouns were omitted. An attempt was made to avoid very long and very Experiment 1 is similar to the experiments of Metcalfe short words. Design. The experiment was a 2 X 2 x 3 x 3 x 6 completely et al. (1981), except that, instead of using spatial recall, within-subjects, factorial design. The factors were modality (audi subjects had to reorder the words within each chunk based tory or visual), item-to-item order of recall [temporal order (TO) on a nonspatial marker. Each subject was presented with or reordered (RO) by syllables], chunk (first, second, or third), lists of words, one at a time, that were divided into chunks position within chunk (1, 2, or 3), and list (I to 6). For purposes of three words each. Within each chunk, there was a one of the analyses that follow, the results were collapsed across lists syllable, a two-syllable, and a three-syllable word. Sub to result in a number correct (based on six observations) for each of the other four factors in the experiment. jects were asked either to recall the words in temporal The experiment consisted of 24 separate lists of words that cor order (TO) within each chunk, or to reorder the words respond to the 24 trials in which each subject engaged. These lists so that recall was in the order one-, two-, and three were divided into four groups of 6 lists each. The four groups of syllable word (RO). The order in which the items would lists were counterbalanced across subjects so that each list was as have to be recalled in the RO condition was not predicta signed to each major treatment combination-auditory temporal, visual temporal, auditory reordered, visual reordered-an equal ble from the temporal order. Instead, if the traces were number of times. In addition, the order of the four major treatment organized in an obligatory forward order, as the direc combinations was counterbalanced so that each of the 24 possible tional auditory trace hypothesis proposes, this organiza permutations of the order was represented, across subjects, exactly tion would be expected to be disruptive in the RO condi twice (to account for the 48 subjects). The groups of lists, as given tion. The specific prediction we made about this above, were randomly assigned with respect to the order of condi tions.