Can the effects of temporal grouping explain the similarities and differences between free recall and serial recall?

Temporal grouping can provide a principled explanation for changes in the serial position curves and output orders that occur with increasing list length in immediate free recall (IFR) and immediate serial recall (ISR). To test these claims, we examined the effects of temporal grouping on the order of recall in IFR and ISR of lists of between one and 12 words. Consistent with prior research, there were significant effects of temporal grouping in the ISR task with mid-length lists using serial recall scoring, and no overall grouping advantage in the IFR task with longer list lengths using free recall scoring. In all conditions, there was a general tendency to initiate recall with either the first list item or with one of the last four items, and then to recall in a forward serial order. In the grouped IFR conditions, when participants started with one of the last four words, there were particularly heightened tendencies to initiate recall with the first item of the most recent group. Moreover, there was an increased degree of forward-ordered transitions within groups than across groups in IFR. These findings are broadly consistent with Farrell's model, in which lists of items in immediate memory are parsed into distinct groups and participants initiate recall with the first item of a chosen cluster, but also highlight shortcomings of that model. The data support the claim that grouping may offer an important element in the theoretical integration of IFR and ISR.

Why do participants initiate free recall of short lists of words with the first list item? Toward a general episodic memory explanation.

Participants who are presented with a short list of words for immediate free recall (IFR) show a strong tendency to initiate their recall with the 1st list item and then proceed in forward serial order. We report 2 experiments that examined whether this tendency was underpinned by a short-term memory store, of the type that is argued by some to underpin recency effects in IFR. In Experiment 1, we presented 3 groups of participants with lists of between 2 and 12 words for IFR, delayed free recall, and continuous-distractor free recall. The to-be-remembered words were simultaneously spoken and presented visually, and the distractor task involved silently solving a series of self-paced, visually presented mathematical equations (e.g., 3 + 2 + 4 = ?). The tendency to initiate recall at the start of short lists was greatest in IFR but was also present in the 2 other recall conditions. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2, where the to-be-remembered items were presented visually in silence and the participants spoke aloud their answers to computer-paced mathematical equations. Our results necessitate that a short-term buffer cannot be fully responsible for the tendency to initiate recall from the beginning of a short list; rather, they suggest that the tendency represents a general property of episodic memory that occurs across a range of time scales.

Examining the relationship between immediate serial recall and immediate free recall: common effects of phonological loop variables but only limited evidence for the phonological loop.

We examined the contribution of the phonological loop to immediate free recall (IFR) and immediate serial recall (ISR) of lists of between one and 15 words. Following Baddeley (1986, 2000, 2007, 2012), we assumed that visual words could be recoded into the phonological store when presented silently but that recoding would be prevented by concurrent articulation (CA; Experiment 1). We further assumed that the use of the phonological loop would be evidenced by greater serial recall for lists of phonologically dissimilar words relative to lists of phonologically similar words (Experiments 2A and 2B). We found that in both tasks, (a) CA reduced recall; (b) participants recalled short lists from the start of the list, leading to enhanced forward-ordered recall; (c) participants were increasingly likely to recall longer lists from the end of the list, leading to extended recency effects; (d) there were significant phonological similarity effects in ISR and IFR when both were analyzed using serial recall scoring; (e) these were reduced by free recall scoring and eliminated by CA; and (f) CA but not phonological similarity affected the tendency to initiate recall with the first list item. We conclude that similar mechanisms underpin ISR and IFR. Critically, the phonological loop is not strictly necessary for the forward-ordered recall of short lists on both tasks but may augment recall by increasing the accessibility of the list items (relative to CA), and in so doing, the order of later items is preserved better in phonologically dissimilar than in phonologically similar lists.