Search

There is evidence in the literature that two retrievals from long-term memory cannot occur in parallel. To date, however, that work has explored only the case of two retrievals from newly acquired episodic memory. These studies demonstrated a retrieval bottleneck even after dual-retrieval practice. That retrieval bottleneck may be a global property of long-term memory retrieval, or it may apply only to the case of two retrievals from episodic memory. In the current experiments, we explored whether that apparent dual-retrieval bottleneck applies to the case of one retrieval from episodic memory and one retrieval from highly overlearned semantic memory. Across three experiments, subjects learned to retrieve a left or right keypress response form a set of 14 unique word cues (e.g., black-right keypress). In addition, they learned a verbal response which involved retrieving the antonym of the presented cue (e.g., black-"white"). In the dual-retrieval condition, subjects had to retrieve both the keypress response and the antonym word. The results suggest that the retrieval bottleneck is superordinate to specific long-term memory systems and holds across different memory components. In addition, the results support the assumption of a cue-level response chunking account of learned retrieval parallelism.

Retrieval of two responses from one visually presented cue occurs sequentially at the outset of dual-retrieval practice. Exclusively for subjects who adopt a mode of grouping (i.e., synchronizing) their response execution, however, reaction times after dual-retrieval practice indicate a shift to learned retrieval parallelism (e.g., Nino & Rickard, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 373-388, 2003). In the present study, we investigated how this learned parallelism is achieved and why it appears to occur only for subjects who group their responses. Two main accounts were considered: a task-level versus a cue-level account. The task-level account assumes that learned retrieval parallelism occurs at the level of the task as a whole and is not limited to practiced cues. Grouping response execution may thus promote a general shift to parallel retrieval following practice. The cue-level account states that learned retrieval parallelism is specific to practiced cues. This type of parallelism may result from cue-specific response chunking that occurs uniquely as a consequence of grouped response execution. The results of two experiments favored the second account and were best interpreted in terms of a structural bottleneck model.

Two experiments tested an identical elements model of the organization of basic arithmetic skills (T. C. Rickard, A. F. Healy, & L. E. Bourne, 1994). This model assumes a distinct abstract representation for each unique combination of the basic elements (i.e., the operands and the required operation) of a problem. Participants practiced multiplication and division problems and were then tested on various altered versions of these problems. Experiment 1 confirmed the prediction of no positive transfer when the presented elements of a test problem do not exactly match those of a practice problem. Experiment 2 confirmed the prediction that there is complete transfer when the elements of the test problem match exactly with those of a practice problem. Experiment 2 also confirmed that there is both perceptually specific and nonspecific speed-up with practice. Implications for number processing and arithmetic are discussed.