Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One of the basic measures of performance in the free recall task is the number of words recalled from a list, which varies with a number of factors, including the list length, the type of material studied, and any task used to process the words (e.g., a simple judgement).
The categories were not made apparent in the original list. Participants in the free recall group were asked to write down as many words as they could remember from the list. Participants in the cued recall group were also asked to recall the words, but this group was provided with the names of the categories, "birds", "furniture", and ...
Free recall describes the process in which a person is given a list of items to remember and then is tested by being asked to recall them in any order. [6] Free recall often displays evidence of primacy and recency effects. Primacy effects are displayed when the person recalls items presented at the beginning of the list earlier and more often.
It is suggested that a general verbal learning component consistently accounts for about 35-40% of the total variance and consists of total free recall over the five trials of list A, semantic clustering free and cued recall (both short- and long-delays), and recognition hits. A second, "response discrimination" component has also been found in ...
The effect is seen in free recall (recall of list items in any given order), serial recall (recall of list items in the order of study), short-term sentence recall (recall specific words from sentences with similar meanings) and paired associate recall (recall of a pair from presentation of one of its members).
Free recall is a basic paradigm used to study human memory. In a free recall task, a subject is presented a list of to-be-remembered items, one at a time. For example, an experimenter might read a list of 20 words aloud, presenting a new word to the subject every 4 seconds.
During a recall task, people benefit equally from a weakly related cue word as from a strongly related cue word, provided the weakly related word was present at encoding. [5] Regardless of semantic relatedness of the paired words, participants more effectively recalled target words that had been primed when prompted for recall. [6]
Roediger read the lists of 12 words to a class of students, and after each list asked them to recall as many words as possible from that list. Following the recall of the sixth list the students were given a pen-and-paper recognition memory test: a list of words comprising 12 studied and 30 unstudied items (including the critical lures) on ...