ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
The contribution of stimulus frequency and recency to set-size effects.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interactions Between Item Set and Vocoding in Serial Recall.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hick's law describes the increase in choice reaction time (RT) with the number of stimulus-response (S-R) mappings. However, in choice RT experiments, set-size is typically confounded with stimulus recency and frequency: With a smaller set-size, each stimulus occurs on average more frequently and more recently than with a larger set-size. To determine to what extent stimulus recency and frequency contribute to the set-size effect, stimulus set-size was manipulated independently of stimulus recency and frequency, by keeping recency and frequency constant for a subset of the stimuli. Although this substantially reduced the set-size effect (by approximately two-thirds for these stimuli), it did not eliminate it. Thus, the time required to retrieve an S-R mapping from memory is (at least in part) determined by the number of alternatives. In contrast, a recent task switching study (Van 't Wout et al. in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition., 41, 363-376, 2015) using the same manipulation found that the time required to retrieve a task-set from memory is not influenced by the number of alternatives per se. Hence, this experiment further supports a distinction between two levels of representation in task-set control: The level of task-sets, and the level of S-R mappings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.