Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
About: Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Recall & Free recall. It has an ISSN identifier of 0022-5371. Over the lifetime, 1830 publications have been published receiving 150484 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: This paper reviewed the evidence for multistore theories of memory and pointed out some difficulties with the approach and proposed an alternative framework for human memory research in terms of depth or levels of processing.
Abstract: This paper briefly reviews the evidence for multistore theories of memory and points out some difficulties with the approach. An alternative framework for human memory research is then outlined in terms of depth or levels of processing. Some current data and arguments are reexamined in the light of this alternative framework and implications for further research considered.
TL;DR: The reading span, the number of final words recalled, varied from two to five for 20 college students and was correlated with three reading comprehension measures, including verbal SAT and tests involving fact retrieval and pronominal reference.
Abstract: Individual differences in reading comprehension may reflect differences in working memory capacity, specifically in the trade-off between its processing and storage functions. A poor reader's processes may be inefficient, so that they lessen the amount of additional information that can be maintained in working memory. A test with heavy processing and storage demands was devised to measure this trade-off. Subjects read aloud a series of sentences and then recalled the final word of each sentence. The reading span, the number of final words recalled, varied from two to five for 20 college students. This span correlated with three reading comprehension measures, including verbal SAT and tests involving fact retrieval and pronominal reference. Similar correlations were obtained with a listening span task, showing that the correlation is not specific to reading. These results were contrasted with traditional digit span and word span measures which do not correlate with comprehension.
TL;DR: In this paper, two possible organizations of long-term memory were proposed: the first one is to store only the generalization that birds can fly, and the second is to infer that a canary is a bird from the stored information that canary can fly.
Abstract: To ascertain the truth of a sentence such as “A canary can fly,” people utilize long-term memory. Consider two possible organizations of this memory. First, people might store with each kind of bird that flies (e.g., canary) the fact that it can fly. Then they could retrieve this fact directly to decide the sentence is true. An alternative organization would be to store only the generalization that birds can fly, and to infer that “A canary can fly” from the stored information that a canary is a bird and birds can fly. The latter organization is much more economical in terms of storage space but should require longer retrieval times when such inferences are necessary. The results of a true-false reaction-time task were found to support the latter hypothesis about memory organization.
TL;DR: The authors showed that the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy can be avoided by doing the right statistics, selecting the appropriate design, and sampling by systematic procedures, or by proceeding according to the so-called method of single cases.
Abstract: Current investigators of words, sentences, and other language materials almost never provide statistical evidence that their findings generalize beyond the specific sample of language materials they have chosen. Nevertheless, these same investigators do not hesitate to conclude that their findings are true for language in general. In so doing, it is argued, they are committing the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy, which can lead to serious error. The problem is illustrated for one well-known series of studies in semantic memory. With the appropriate statistics these studies are shown to provide no reliable evidence for most of the main conolusions drawn from them. A review of other experiments in semantic memory shows that many of them are likewise suspect. It is demonstrated how this fallacy can be avoided by doing the right statistics, selecting the appropriate design, and sampling by systematic procedures, or, alternatively, by proceeding according to the so-called method of single cases.
TL;DR: Levels of processing were manipulated as a function of acquisition task and type of recognition test in three experiments to show that semantic acquisition was superior to rhyme acquisition given a standard recognition test, whereas rhyming acquisition was inferior to semantic acquisition givenA rhyming recognition test.
Abstract: Levels of processing were manipulated as a function of acquisition task and type of recognition test in three experiments. Experiment 1 showed that semantic acquisition was superior to rhyme acquisition given a standard recognition test, whereas rhyme acquisition was superior to semantic acquisition given a rhyming recognition test. The former finding supports, while the latter finding contradicts, the levels of processing claim that depth of processing leads to stronger memory traces. Experiment 2 replicated these findings using both immediate and delayed recognition tests. Experiment 3 indicated that these effects were not dependent upon the number of times a rhyme sound was presented during acquisition. Results are interpreted in terms of an alternate framework involving transfer appropriate processing.