Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223965›Full record

ReviewQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2025

The Working Memory Model and the relationship between immediate serial recall and immediate free recall.

Geoff Ward, Philip C Beaman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Geoff WardDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7309-1404
Philip C BeamanSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effects of speech-based variables on the immediate serial recall (ISR) task constitute fundamental evidence underpinning the concept of the Phonological Loop component of Working Memory. Somewhat surprisingly, the Phonological Loop has yet to be applied to the immediate free recall (IFR) task although both tasks share similar memoranda and presentation methods. We believe that the separation of theories of ISR and IFR has contributed to the historical divergence between the Working Memory and Episodic Memory literature. We review more recent evidence showing that the two tasks are approached by participants in similar ways, with similar encoding and rehearsal strategies, and are similarly affected by manipulations of word length, phonological similarity, articulatory suppression/concurrent articulation, and irrelevant speech/sound. We present new analyses showing that the outputs of the two tasks share similar runs of successive items that include the first and last items- which we term start- and end-sequences, respectively-that the remaining residual items exhibit strong recency effects, and that start- and end-sequences impose constraints on output order that help account for error transposition gradients in ISR. Such analyses suggest that similar mechanisms might convey serial order information in the two tasks. We believe that recency effects are often under-appreciated in theories of ISR, and IFR mechanisms could generate error transpositions. We hope that our review and new analyses encourage greater theoretical integration between ISR and IFR and between the Working Memory and Episodic Memory literature.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermMental RecallModels, PsychologicalSerial LearningHumansMemory, EpisodicPhoneticsFree recallprimacy effectrecency effectserial recalltransposition errorsworking memory

Identifiers

PMID39223965
PMCPMC11783987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.