Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
3
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1993-7-29
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
When subjects perform a distractor task before and after every item on a list, recall of the last item is much higher than recall of items from the middle of the list. Koppenaal and Glanzer (1990) have shown that this long-term recency effect can be eliminated by using, after the last item, a distractor task different from that used elsewhere on the list. They interpreted this finding as evidence in favor of a short-term-store account of long-term recency effects. This account is challenged by the results reported here. Practice either on the task or on time-sharing between the task and list items had little impact on the recency effect. Also, substantial recency effects were found when a different distractor task occurred after every list position. Thus, it is not true that long-term recency effects are found only when subjects have an opportunity to adapt to the distractor task. Our results are not consistent with a short-term-store account of recency effects.
|
| pubmed:grant | |
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
C
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
May
|
| pubmed:issn |
0090-502X
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
21
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
329-37
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-14
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1993
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Evidence against a short-term-store account of long-term recency effects.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
|