Asymmetrical interference between item and order information in short-term memory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To recall a list of items just after the end of the presentation, participants must encode both the items and the order in which they were presented. Despite a long history of studying item and order information, little is known regarding the relation between them. Here, we examined this issue with a novel task in which participants saw two 4- or 6-item lists on each trial, along with specific instructions for each list to be encoded for subsequent item information retrieval or order reconstruction. In Experiments 1, 2, and 5, words were used for both item and order lists, whereas in Experiments 3 and 4, words were used for one list and characters for the other. An item recognition task was used in Experiments 1-4, and item reconstruction from a fragment was used in Experiment 5. The general finding was that order retention was hindered when both lists required order reconstruction compared to when one list required item information only. In certain circumstances, retention of items in the first list was impaired when the second list also required item retention. We address the pattern of results with a new theoretical account in which overwriting occurs for similar materials and in which there is a capacity limit specific to order information. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".