Articulatory rehearsal and phonological storage in working memory: A replication of Longoni et al. (1993)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to replicate Longoni et al.'s (1993) investigation into the multiple subsystems within the phonological loop, originally proposed by Baddeley et al. (1984). To address the replicability crisis in scientific research, this replication maintains similar methodologies but also features a more diverse sample, characterized solely by advanced French proficiency and increased participant numbers. In addition, this study examined various characteristics of the phonological loop, including the phonemic similarity effect, word length effect, presentation conditions, articulatory suppression effect, and irrelevant sounds. However, the articulatory suppression effect, word length effect, presentation speed effect, and delay effect did not replicate. Notably, an interaction emerged between word length and phonemic similarity, indicating a multiplicative relationship rather than an additive one. The present study emphasizes the importance of further exploration into the factors that influence the non-replicated effects, including the discriminant validity of the variables. Future studies could leverage insights from the phonological loop's characteristics to enhance understanding of the working memory system.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".