More recent work has assessed whether Baddeley's ( 1986) working memory model pertains to sign language processing. These findings indicate that signs, like words, are encoded into short-term memory in a phonological or articulatory code rather than in a semantic code. This result is similar to what has been reported for users of spoken language, where subjects exhibit poorer memory for lists of similarly sounding words (Conrad and Hull 1964). Likewise, when sign lists are composed of phonologically similar sign forms, signers exhibit poorer recall (Klima and Bellugi 1979). Early studies of memory for lists of signs report classic patterns of forgetting and interference, including serial position effects of primacy and recency (i.e., signs at the beginning and the end of a list are better remembered than items in the middle). Corina, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 2.2 Memory for SignsĮfforts to explore how the demands of sign language processing influence memory and attention have led to several significant findings. These results raise the question of why such effects are weak in cache recovery but prevalent with other measures of memory performance.ĭ.P. And when Lewis and Kamil (2006) gave Clark’s nutcrackers separate lists of locations to remember, they showed clear retroactive and proactive interference effects between the lists. For example, when black-capped chickadees were presented with three-item lists in an operant associative task, they showed clear primacy and recency effects ( Crystal and Shettleworth, 1994). They found no evidence of interference between the two sets of caches.Įxperiments using techniques other than cache recovery have found clear evidence for interference effects in parids and corvids. (1997b) explicitly tested for interference in nutcrackers’ cache memory by allowing caches to be made at different times. As might be expected from the failure to find strong serial-position effects during cache recovery, attempts to document retroactive and proactive interference during caching have also yielded only weak evidence for such effects. If the target was experienced after the interfering information, it is called proactive interference. If the target information was experienced before the interfering information, the effects of the interfering information are called retroactive interference. Two types of interference are generally recognized. Serial position effects are often interpreted as due to the effects of interference, at least in part (see Shettleworth, 1998, for discussion See also Chapters 1.06, 1.10). Gould, in Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, 2008 1.22.3.2.4 Proactive and retroactive interference
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |