Variability across subjects in free recall versus cued recall
| dc.contributor.author | Mah, Eric Y. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lindsay, D. Stephen | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-01-25T22:05:27Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-01-25T22:05:27Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023 | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
| dc.description | We would like to thank Henry L. Roediger, Colleen M. Kelley, John Dunlosky, Larry Jacoby, Reed Hunt, and Roger Ratcliff for their helpful insights and suggestions. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Memory scientists usually compare mean performance on some measure(s) (accuracy, confidence, latency) as a function of experimental condition. Some researchers have made within-subject variability in task performance a focal outcome measure (e.g., Yao et al., 2016). Here we explored between-subject variability in accuracy as a function of experimental conditions. This work was inspired by an incidental finding in a previous study in which we observed greater variability in accuracy of memory performance on cued recall (CR) versus free recall (FR) of English animal/object nouns (Mah et al., 2023). Here we report experiments designed to assess the reliability of that pattern and to explore its causes (e.g., differential interpretation of instructions, (un)relatedness of CR word pairs, encoding time). In Experiment 1 (N = 120 undergraduates), we replicated the CR:FR variability difference with a more representative set of English nouns. In Experiments 2A (N = 117 Prolific participants) and 2B (N = 127 undergraduates), we found that the CR:FR variability difference persisted in a forced-recall procedure. In Experiment 3 (N = 260 Prolific participants), we used meaningfully related word pairs and still found greater variability in CR than FR performance. In Experiment 4 (N = 360 Prolific participants), we equated CR and FR study phases by having all participants study pairs and again observed greater variability in CR than FR. The same was true in Experiment 5 (N = 120 undergraduates), in which study time was self-paced. Comparisons of variability across subjects can yield insights into the mechanisms underlying task performance. | en_US |
| dc.description.reviewstatus | Unreviewed | en_US |
| dc.description.scholarlevel | Faculty | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | This work was supported by an NSERC Discovery grant (#RGPIN-2016-03944) awarded to DSL. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Mah, E. Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2024). Variability across subjects in free recall versus cued recall. Memory & Cognition, 52, 23–40. https://doi.org./103758/s13421-023-01440-4 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01440-4 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k4va2 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1828/15887 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Memory & Cognition | en_US |
| dc.subject | cued recall | |
| dc.subject | free recall | |
| dc.subject | memory | |
| dc.subject.department | Department of Psychology | |
| dc.title | Variability across subjects in free recall versus cued recall | en_US |
| dc.type | Preprint | en_US |