A crucial element in Aitkin’s ability to recall such large numbers included the use of a process known as ‘chunking’. He was able to separate seven digits into a single ‘chunk’. Using a technique such as this meant that the short-term memory was now assessed on the number of chunks one could retain rather than how many numbers they could retain. This technique is most successful when attempting the recall of letters. It involves chunking letters together to make a single sound therefore reducing the amount of information that is stored allowing for more room in the short-term memory (Baddeley 1999 [1]). So far it is evident that digit span, verbal speech, rhythm and chunking all have an effect on the number if items that can be recalled from the short-term memory. Another factor affecting recall and used in the testing of short-term memory capacity limits is the recency effect in free recall. Free recall involves subjects being presented with a list of items to remember and requested to repeat them in any order. According to Eysenck and Keane (2002 [3]), the recency effect ‘refers to the finding that the last few items in a list are usually much better remembered in immediate recall that the items in the middle of the list’. Glazner and Cunitz (1966 [3]) stated that counting backwards for as little as ten seconds between the presentation of a list and the beginning of the recall task mainly affects the recency effect. Eysenck and Keane insist that this happens because of the two or three words that are susceptible to the recency effect being in the short-term store at the end of the presentation list making them vulnerable (2002 [3]). Bjork and Whitton (1974[3]), continued this line of research and found that if participants counted backwards for twelve seconds after each item in the list was presented, the recency effect remained. Baddeley proposed that the recency effect could be eradicated by simply adding a small amount of distraction, such as asking subjects to add five single digits. According to Glazner (1972 [1]), due to the apparent differences between the recall of recent and early items, there is a suggestion that the former depends on short-term memory and that the latter is more dependent on the longer term aspects of memory.
As previously mentioned, Baddeley considered that one of the important factors on recall from short-term memory involved speech. For Tehan and Lalor (2000 [6]) memory span is also affected by speech-based variables. In their article they explain how Baddeley paid close attention to the effects of such variables. In 1966, Baddeley devised a two-component structure to account for the interactive effects of these variables on memory span and recall. His first component was the rapidly decaying phonological store in which phonological representations are temporarily stored. The second component of his theory was the verbal rehearsal process consisting of the dual function of translating visual input into phonemic representations and maintaining these representations into a readily retrievable state. Baddeley stated that the rehearsal process became responsible for producing word length effects and that it was a limiting factor on performance. According to Tehan and Lalor (2000 [6]), there is substantial empirical support for the two-component theory shown in Baddeley et al’s demonstration in 1975 that memory span was in fact related to the spoken duration of words. The material words that took longer to pronounce were associated with a lower level of recall. Baddeley et al found a positive linear relationship existed between the number of items that could be recalled and the rate of rehearsal for particular material (Tehan and Lalor 2000 [6]). In 1992, Cowan [6] provided support for the work of Baddeley et al (1975 [6]); he found that there was a positive association between memory span and the duration of spoken recall. Cowan stated that more capable subjects responded at the same rate as subjects with lower memory spans but responses continued for longer periods. Cowan argues that pause times in-between the words reflects retrieval and reactivation efficiency. In other words, subjects are assumed to retrieve and refresh the unrecalled items from the short-term memory. With spoken recall studies such as those conducted by Cowan and Baddeley, items are subject to rapid decay during recall. Items in the short-term store are therefore at the risk of being forgotten before the recall task begins, mainly due to their fragile state in such a limited store.
Various theorists such as Ebbinghaus (1885/1913 [3]) have argued that forgetting occurs because of a spontaneous decay in memory traces over time. Eysenck and Keane note that the main assumption is that forgetting depends on the length of the retention rather than on what happens between the learning and the test. In the late fifties, John Brown (1958) in the United Kingdom and the Petersons (1959) in the United States investigated short-term forgetting. Results of their studies showed that even sequences within the memory span would show clear forgetting if the subject was prevented from thinking about the stimuli or rehearsing it in anyway (Baddeley 1999 [1]). Peterson and Peterson (1959 [1,3]) conducted their experiment using sequences of three unrelated consonants. They presented the stimuli to their subjects and immediately after the subject had read them, they were shown a three-figure number and asked to start counting backwards from it in threes. After a period of time ranging from three to eighteen seconds, the subject was then asked to recall the original three-letter stimulus. The task was repeated three times, each time followed by a counting task and then a recall test. Peterson and Peterson (1959 [1]) put the results into a line graph for the times they prevented their participants from rehearsing the items and for the interval periods from three to eighteen seconds, the line formed was named as the ‘forgetting curve’. It was evident that the forgetting curve was the same whether one was trying to remember three letters or three words (Baddeley 1999 [1]). Baddeley points out that nevertheless, single three letter words show very little forgetting. This indicates that, as with memory span, the important fact is the number of chunks remembered rather than the number of letters (Baddeley 1999 [1]). The research presented has demonstrated that many factors have an effect on the number of items to be recalled from the short-term memory. It is clear that the two highlighted factors are the digit span and the recency effect. Many researchers have exposed other variables as being responsible factors on the amount to be recalled from short-term memory. Highlighted in this research are the factors of chunking, rhythm, spoken recall and decay. Many of these ideas contribute to an understanding of how performance in recall testing can be enhanced but also how one may forget things over the short-term. The components of decay and rehearsal are said to build the ‘standard’ model of memory. Nairne (2002 [5]) is one of a few researchers to refute the standard model. His study is based on remembering over the short term and proposes an opposing theory to that of the standard model.
Information within the human memory needs to be accessible in some form. Many theorists believe the temporary store in short-term memory to be the holding bay for information. Nairne concludes that many believe the ‘activation’ of knowledge enables individuals to remember over the short term, such activation establishes an activity trace in the short-term memory enabling one to recall pieces of information (Nairne 2002 [5]). With a process such as this it is assumed that activation decays spontaneously over time. This would mean another process such as rehearsal is needed to maintain the availability of information. As mentioned above, Nairne considers the main components of the standard model to be activation, rehearsal and decay. McAlree (1998 [5]) believes that once items are activated they exist in a state of immediate accessibility, stating that the amount of activation in turn, accrues from a continual trade-off between rehearsal and decay (Nairne 2002 [5]). Nairne states that the case for the standard model has lost much of its support over the past decade. He clearly defines the fact that remembering is always a joint function of trace properties and retrieval cues, if this is the case, it would not make sense that a single property such as ‘activation’ can be identical to remembering (Nairne 2002 [5]). More researchers are beginning to recognise the fact that the retention of information in short-term memory is cue driven, as is the retention of information in long-term memory. Nairne believes that simple appeals to rehearsal or decay are unlikely to explain the specific details of short-term forgetting (Nairne 2002 [5]). He criticises the view that rehearsal and decay are determining factors of remembering over the short term and opts for a cue driven approach. He concludes that it seems likely rehearsal could be a mechanism for representation of stimulus material, meaning that discrete rehearsals might replicate items in memory that enhance the memory later (Nairne 2002 [5]). Nairne regards the most important aspect of rehearsal is that it produces benefits, not in the sense that it refreshes a decaying trace but because it promotes the idea that short term memory uses a cue-driven retrieval process (2002 [5]). He then assessed the role of decay in short term remembering. Decay is rarely used to explain the process of memory; it only becomes useful in the theories of short-term memory. His view on decay is a lot higher than that of rehearsal; he is able to accept that the role of decay has importance. This is due to the fact that it fits into the assumption of the standard model that activation is lost in a second or two and must be refreshed some how. Nairne identifies the link between remembering and activation in the standard model, with no reference to retrieval cues. Baddeley (1990 [5]) argued for the recognition of decay and rehearsal and stated that they could both be operating in the short-term memory. It is evident that Nairne does actually accept the importance of the roles of decay and rehearsal, however, he does not rely on them as far as remembering over the short term is concerned. One of the major issues to overcome for many theorists was the proposal that remembering over the short term is actually cue driven.
Nairne began to evaluate alternative models to the standard model. Nairne is aware that many factors have influenced the shift towards a cue-driven understanding of remembering in the short-term. Wickens (1970 [5]) devised a ‘Prototypical Paradigm’ to test immediate memory. His experiment involved subjects receiving immediate memory trials where successive lists were drawn from the same conceptual class, for example animals. Wickens found that performance would typically decline over the trials; he stated that this was a result of people using the conceptual class as a cue to guide short-term recall. According to Watkins and Watkins (1975 [5]) the effectiveness of the cue is determined by the degree of cue overload. Nairne (2002 [5]) concludes that on build up trials, the cue becomes overloaded and the performance suffers but on release trials, the conceptual cue specifies the items on the correct trial and performance improves. Nairne’s interest in the idea of cue dependent retrieval processes in remembering led to the development of his own model. He referred to it as a ‘unitary’ model due to the fact that assumes similar processes for short and long-term remembering (2001 [5]). In 1988, Nairne devised the ‘Feature Model’. Nairne believed the information stored in short-term memory is not an activated ‘item’ ready for retrieval, but an arrangement of activated cues that are reconstructed moments before retrieval. For Nairne, the cues in his feature model consist of previous records, for example, records of a just presented list that have deteriorated through interference would be present. He believes the process of retrieval consists of the item for recall being selected from the long-term memory. He states that it ‘is not the match between the to-be interpreted cues and long-term memory candidates that is important but how well cues specify one or more of the targets (Nairne 2001 [5]). For Nairne, short-term forgetting in this model occurs because the available cues become poor predictors of target items. The models proposed by Nairne and Wickens are two examples of how remembering over the short-term is assumed to be primarily cue driven towards performance in come cases.
It is evident that Nairne considers activation, rehearsal and decay to have an important role in remembering over the short-term. Throughout his article he also makes reference to the factors affecting recall such as digit span and the word length effect. As research progresses, new ideas are developed and researched. Long-term memory has always been specified as being cue-driven; it is therefore acceptable that the same idea could be applied to short-term memory. Nairne’s theory is successful in developing the new idea of the involvement of cues in remembering. There is much research to show that theories and ideas regarding short-term memory are becoming more and more advanced. Baddeley has been a key researcher in the work on short-term memory and has helped to advance the discussion. Nairne’s theory supports the standard model to some extent, he has accepted it and agrees with models that incorporate it’s basic ideas. There is agreement about the fact that many factors have an effect on the amount of information one can recall from short-term memory, the only real dispute among researchers is remembering over the short term and whether or not models should be formed on a cue-driven basis.
Bibliography
References
Aitkin (1937) In, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Baddeley, A. (1999) Essentials of Human Memory. Psychology Press: Hove
Baddeley, A. (1990) In, Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81
Baddeley, A. (1975) In, Tehan, G. & Lalor, D.M. (2000) Individual Differences in Memory Span: The contribution of rehearsal, access to lexical memory and output speed. The quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology, 53a (4), 1012 – 1038
Bjork & Whitton (1974) In, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Cowan (1992) In, Tehan, G. & Lalor, D.M. (2000) Individual Differences in Memory Span: The contribution of rehearsal, access to lexical memory and output speed. The quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology, 53a (4), 1012 – 1038
Ebbinghaus (1885) In, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s
Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Glazner (1972) In, Baddeley, A. (1999) Essentials of Human Memory. Psychology Press: Hove
Glazner & Cunitz (1966) In, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Jacobs, J. (1887) In, Baddeley, A. (1999) Essentials of Human memory. Psychology Press: Hove.
James, W. (1890) In, Eysenck, M.W. (1999) Principles of Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press: Hove.
McAlree (1998) In, Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81
Miller (1956) In, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Nairne, J.S. (2001) In, Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81
Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81
Peterson & Peterson (1959) In, Baddeley, A. (1999) Essentials of Human Memory. Psychology Press: Hove
Peterson & Peterson (1959) In, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove.
Tehan, G. & Lalor, D.M. (2000) Individual Differences in Memory Span: The contribution of rehearsal, access to lexical memory and output speed. The quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology, 53a (4), 1012 – 1038
Watkins & Watkins (1975) In, Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81.
Wickens (1970) In, Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81
Directly Consulted Sources
1, Baddeley, A. (1999) Essentials of Human Memory. Psychology Press: Hove
Baddeley, A. (1999)
Glazner (1972)
Jacobs, J. (1887)
Peterson & Peterson (1959)
2, Eysenck, M.W. (1999) Principles of Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press:
Hove.
James, W. (1890)
3, Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s
Handbook (4th Ed) Psychology Press: Hove
Aitkin (1937)
Bjork & Whitton (1974)
Ebbinghaus (1885)
Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T (2002)
Glazner & Cunitz (1966)
Miller (1956)
Peterson & Peterson (1959)
4, Gross, R. & McIlveen, I (1998) Psychology: A New Introduction. Hodder and
Stoughton: London.
5, Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering over the Short-Term: The case against the
Standard Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 53 – 81
Baddeley, A. (1990)
McAlree (1998)
Nairne, J.S. (2001)
Nairne, J.S. (2002)
Watkins & Watkins (1975)
Wickens (1970)
6, Tehan, G. & Lalor, D.M. (2000) Individual Differences in Memory Span: The
contribution of rehearsal, access to lexical memory and output speed. The quarterly
journal of Experimental Psychology, 53a (4), 1012 – 1038
Baddeley, A. (1975)
Cowan (1992)
Tehan, G. & Lalor, D.M. (2000)
7,