Semantic and phonetic interference in memory recall
This study examined retroactive semantic and phonetic interference in memory recall. Participants were shown either a target list, a target list following a non-target list of semantic words or a target list following a non-target list of phonetic words. They were then asked to recall only the list with the results showing a significant difference between the effect of semantic and phonetic interference during the memory recall. Additionally, a significant difference was visible between all three conditions, with the semantic and phonetic conditions scoring a lower recall level in comparison to the controlled condition. Introduction
The active difference between short-term memory and long-term memory is anything but exact. Although, there is an understanding that long-term memory is being examined when a list is displayed several occasions over an interval of time calculated in minutes and recalling is measured after minutes, hours and days, and short-term memory is being examined when a list is displayed once and at a rate of fewer than 30 seconds. Within cognition a key question is whether information is forgotten due to a function of time. A strong amount of research proposes that information is not forgotten due to time, but as a result of interference (see, e.g., Lovatt, Ayons, & Masterson, 2002; Neath & Surprenant, 2003; Oberauer & Kliegl, 2006). However, many academics have thought that unrehearsed information is forgotten over several seconds (e.g., Baddeley, 1986; Towse, Hitch, & Hutton, 2000), since supported theories (e.g., Baddeley & Scott, 1971; Cowan, Nugent, Elliot, & Geer, 2000; Mueller, Seymour, Kieras, & Meyer, 2003). The matter continues to be uncertain. Our skill to selectively remember earlier information is a vital aspect of our long-term memory system. Prior research proposed that in many circumstances individuals have the ability of selectively seeking information in memory, preceding to their subsequent remembrance. Even with research for this skill to selectively seek information from our memory, we still do not have much information on how we actually achieve this complex task. Abel and Bauml’s (2013) research focuses on participants revising items from different categories and then continually recalling specific items from specific categories, recall rehearsal normally increases recall of the rehearsed information although impairs retrieval of associated but unrehearsed information, relative to manage information from unrehearsed categories. The results displayed the belief that memory impairment following extended intervals between practice and test and in the occurrence of retroactive interference. In opposition, both the rehearsed and the related unrehearsed information displayed barely any failure to remember under these conditions. Unsworth, Brewer and Spillers’ (2013) conflicting study observed the impact of proactive and retroactive interference on memory targeting, examining how individuals concentrate their search on a target list when accompanied by proactive or retroactive interference. Results showed that long-term memory targeting is steered by noisy temporal-contextual cues (unless other salient cues are current) that trigger equally relevant and irrelevant memoranda that are then exposed to a post recovery supervising process; these findings challenge the results from Abel and Bauml’s (2013) study. This research among other findings (see, e.g., Lovatt, Ayons, & Masterson, 2002; Neath & Surprenant, 2003; Oberauer & Kliegl, 2006; Unsworth, Brewer & Spillers’, 2013) motives the present study. This research examines not only the question of whether there will be a difference between semantic and phonetic interference during memory recall, but also if the results will show a significant difference between the retroactive interference conditions and the controlled condition. Additionally, this study has also been...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document