Practice Effects on Two Memory Retrievals from a Single Cue

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 373-388

  Nino, Randall S ^a   Rickard, Timothy C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEMORY; REACTION TIME; RECALL;

CUES; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; LEARNING; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); REACTION TIME;

EID: 0042410960     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.373     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ashby, F. G., & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154-179.
2. Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. E. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
3. Colonius, H. (1990). Possibly dependent probability summation of reaction time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 34, 253-275.
4. Compton, B. J., & Logan, G. D. (1991). The transition from algorithm to retrieval in memory-based theories of automaticity. Memory & Cognition, 19, 151-158.
5. Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159-180.
6. Crutcher, R. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2000). The role of mediators in memory retrieval as a function of practice: Controlled mediation to direct access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1297-1317.
7. Diederich, A., & Colonius, H. (1987). Intersensory facilitation in the motor component? A reaction time analysis. Psychological Research, 49, 23-29.
8. Fagot, C., & Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1058-1079.
9. Gottsdanker, R. (1975). The attaining and maintaining of preparation. In P. M. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 33-49). New York: Academic Press.
10. Li, Y., & Wright, D. L. (2000). An assessment of the attention demands during random and blocked practice schedules. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(A), 591-606.
11. Logan, G. D. (1978). Attention in character classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 32-63.
12. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
13. Logan, G. D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 317-339.
14. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247-279.
15. Nino, R. S. (2001). Grouping two memory retrieval outputs from a single cue. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego.
16. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300.
17. Palmeri, T. J. (1997). Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 324-354.
18. Palmeri, T. J. (1999). Theories of automaticity and the power law of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 543-551.
19. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
20. Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Pashler, H., & Christian, C. (1996). Bottlenecks in planning and producing manual, vocal, and foot responses. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego.
22. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 41(A), 19-45.
23. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
24. Richardson, J. T. E. (1998). The availability and effectiveness of reported mediators in associative learning: A historical review and an experimental investigation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 597-614.
25. Rickard, T. C. (1997). Bending the power law: A CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 288-311.
26. Rickard, T. C. (1999). A CMPL alternative account of practice effects in numerosity judgment tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 532-542.
27. Rickard, T. C., & Bajic, D. (in press). Memory retrieval given two independent cues: Cue selection or parallel access? Cognitive Psychology.
28. Rickard, T. C., & Logan, G. D. (2002). Memory retrieval practice: Strengthening or instance accrual? Manuscript in preparation.
29. Rickard, T. C., & Pashler, H. (2003). A bottleneck in memory retrieval from a single cue. Manuscript submitted for publication.
30. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
31. Rohrer, D., Pashler, H., & Etchegaray, J. (1998). When two memories can and cannot be retrieved concurrently. Memory & Cognition, 26, 731-739.
32. Ross, H. B., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). A test of parallel versus serial processing applied to memory retrieval. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 24, 182-233.
33. Scarborough, D., & Sternberg, S. (1998). Discovering mental processing stages: The method of additive factors. In D. Scarborough & S. Sternberg (Eds.), Methods, models and conceptual issues: An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 4, pp. 703-863). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 408-425.
35. Schweickert, R. (1983). Latency network theory: Scheduling of processes in sentence verification and the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 353-383.
36. Siegler, R. S. (1988). Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 258-275.
37. Sipos, I. (1982). RTs to colors and their names with a manual and a voice key. Studio Psychologia, 24, 107-144.
38. Townsend, J. T. (1990). Truth and consequences of ordinal differences in statistical distributions: Toward a theory of hierarchical inference. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 551-567.
39. Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268-1283.
40. Van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 424-465.
41. Van Zandt, T., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: An evaluative review. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 563-580.
42. Wenger, M. J. (1999). On the whats and hows of retrieval in the acquisition of a simple skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1137-1160.