ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6612-9822
Current Organisation
Virginia Tech
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 2004
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 09-2010
DOI: 10.1037/A0021011
Abstract: Proactive interference (PI) occurs when an earlier item interferes with memory for a newer item. Whereas some researchers (e.g., Surprenant & Neath, 2009a) argue that PI can be observed in all memory systems, some multiple systems theorists (e.g., Cowan, 1999) propose that items in the focus of attention of working memory are immune to PI. Two experiments tested whether PI occurs when the to-be-remembered items are assumed, by multiple-systems theorists, to be held in the focus of attention. In each experiment, subjects saw four trials in a row with the same type of to-be-remembered items, followed by four trials in a row with a different type of material. On each trial, only 3 stimuli were shown, which is below the capacity limit of the focus of attention, and subjects were asked if a probe item was one of those 3 items seen. In both experiments, response time increased from Trial 1 to Trial 4, suggesting that items from the earlier trials interfered with memory on the later trials. In addition, release from PI was shown in that response times decreased with a change of materials. The results replicate those first reported by Hanley and Scheirer (1975), and pose a problem for theorists who argue that parts of short-term memory are immune to PI.
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 2014
Publisher: Psychology Press
Date: 15-08-2008
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 2006
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.586
Abstract: The authors report 2 experiments that compare the serial recall of pure lists of long words, pure lists of short words, and lists of long or short words containing just a single isolated word of a different length. In both experiments for pure lists, there was a substantial recall advantage for short words the isolated words were recalled better than other words in the same list, and there was a reverse word-length effect: Isolated long words were recalled better than isolated short words. These results contradict models that seek to explain the word-length effect in terms of list-based accounts of rehearsal speed or in terms of item-based effects (such as difficulty of assembling items).
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-11-2010
DOI: 10.3758/S13421-010-0030-7
Abstract: The Focus of Attention (FOA) is the latest incarnation of a limited capacity store in which a small number of items, in this case four, are deemed to be readily accessible and do not need to be retrieved. Thus a corollary of these ideas is that those items in the FOA are always immune to proactive interference. While there is empirical support for instances of immunity to PI in short-term retention tasks that involve memory for four-item lists, there are also many instances in which PI is observed with four-item lists as well as instances where PI and immunity to PI can be shown in the same experiment. In contrast to the FOA assumptions, an alternative cue-based account predicts both the presence of PI and immunity to PI as a function of the relation between the cues available and the particular test. Three experiments contrasted the FOA assumptions and the cue-based approach in a short-term cued recall task in which PI is manipulated by testing whether the presentation of previous, similar items would interfere with immediate recall of three list items. The results indicated that even with very short lists, both PI and immunity to PI could be observed. The PI effects observed in our experiment are at odds with the FOA approach and are more readily explained using the cueing account.
No related grants have been discovered for Aimee Surprenant.