Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
While "not to remember" had a significant effect in reducing proactive interference, cued to "not to recall" previously encoded and stored information did not significantly reduce the effect. Therefore, these associated cues do not directly control the potential effect of proactive interference on short-term memory span. [clarification needed] [17]
Kevin Darby and Vladimir Sloutsky's study of interference effects on memory development has shown that associative interference can have significant implications on learning as a result of its effects on memory (ref). In their study, 2 experimental studies were outlined to test the ways in which interference impacts learning. [4]
The Ranschburg effect is eliminated when subjects are instructed to avoid guessing strategies, however this causes the validity and reliability of the test to also become eliminated. [1] Repetition inhibition, otherwise known as the presence of the Ranschburg effect, can be produced by output interference and guessing strategies. [4]
A common additional task is to have the participant learn a new set of associations with the cued items and study the amount of interference from prior association that occurs. These experiments help to develop theories on how we learn associations and what conditions affect that learning. [5] The free recall does not use item pairs.
The effects of stress on memory include interference with a person's capacity to encode memory and the ability to retrieve information. [1] [2] Stimuli, like stress, improved memory when it was related to learning the subject. [3] During times of stress, the body reacts by secreting stress hormones into the bloodstream.
The recency effect occurs when the short-term memory is used to remember the most recent items, and the primacy effect occurs when the long-term memory has encoded the earlier items. The recency effect can be eliminated if there is a period of interference between the input and the output of information extending longer than the holding time of ...
The test is used clinically to examine patients with different neuropsychological impairments, but has also helped to understand the properties of the test. For example, immediate recall and long-delayed recall were highly correlated (above r=0.80) for normal patients and those with Huntington's disease, but the variables were only correlated ...
The "part-set cuing effect" was initially discovered by Slamecka (1968), who found that providing a portion of to-be-remembered items as test cues often impairs retrieval of the remaining un-cued items compared with performance in a no-cue (free-recall) control condition. [10]