ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2026
Interresponse times in free recall.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2026. 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.
- Revisiting Hebb: The Mechanisms of Repetition Learning.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In free recall procedures, the order and timing of participants' responses can inform our understanding of human memory. Analyzing a corpus of more than half a million freely recalled words from 127 young adult participants, we develop a statistical model of interresponse times (IRTs) as a function of the temporal and semantic relations among the recalled items and their positions in the output sequence. Residual IRTs exhibited strong sequential dependencies, being positively correlated at lags of one and two transitions. We used this IRT model to evaluate the hypothesis that chunking helps participants learn unstructured materials. Specifically, we hypothesized that chunks would appear as a slow IRT, indicative of a boundary, followed by a sequence of fast IRTs. Model-based analyses that included sequential dependencies in IRTs offered evidence for spontaneous chunking in free recall of lists that lacked any grouping or hierarchical structure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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.