Search

According to a widespread claim used for teaching recommendations, students remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, and 50% of what they see and hear. Clearly, the percentages cannot be correct, and there is no empirical evidence for the ordering. To investigate the ordering, in a navigation paradigm, subjects were given messages instructing them to move in a grid of four stacked matrices by clicking a computer mouse. Three modalities were compared presented either once, see (visual arrows), hear (auditory words), read (visual words); twice in succession, see-see , hear-hear , read-read ; or in two different successive modalities, see-hear , hear-see , see-read , read-see , hear-read , read-hear . Better performance was found for messages presented twice than once, but messages in the two modalities were not always better than twice in one modality. For the twice-presented messages, performance varied as a function of the second modality, with see best and read worst. However, the ordering for the first modality was not reliable and was inconsistent with the widespread claim. Thus, the widespread claim is clearly wrong, not only in its percentages, but also because of its lack of generality.

In a continuous memory-updating paradigm, subjects studied name-color associations and were tested later for the color associate given the name. The default color response was made in one location, but on predesignated trials the response was required to be made in a special location. Memory for the color associated with a given name was assessed after short and long retention intervals when both default and special responses were required. Separate measures were examined of memory for the intention to respond in a particular way (default or special) and of memory for the color associations paired with the names. Memory for color associates was better overall with short than with long retention intervals and was better when special (rather than default) responses were required, especially at the long retention interval. These results imply that the requirement to respond in a special way protects associations from loss due to forgetting.

Two experiments investigated effects of articulatory processing on number data entry. Participants entered four-digit numbers presented as either words or numerals on a keyboard, either under an articulatory condition or in silence. In Experiment 1, the articulatory condition was articulatory suppression; in Experiment 2, it was vocalisation. In Experiment 1, the articulatory suppression group typed initial digits faster than the silent group, but for subsequent digits, the opposite pattern occurred at least with word stimuli. In Experiment 2, the silent group typed initial digits faster but typed subsequent digits somewhat slower than the vocalisation group. Thus, articulation of numbers, which promotes entry into the phonological loop of working memory, retards processing of initial digits but enhances processing of subsequent digits.

Level ordering has proven inadequate as a morphological theory, leaving unexplained the experimental results taken to support it as a component of innate grammar-young children's acceptance of irregular plurals in English compounds. The present study demonstrates that these results can be explained by slower access to the grammatically preferred singulars of irregular nouns when compounds are created on-line from plural stimuli. Experiments on English noun-noun compound production and on production of either singular or plural forms from the same or opposite form confirmed that more irregular than regular plurals were used in compounds, and showed that producing irregular singulars from plurals was slower than producing regular singulars. Plural responses were also slower when cue and required response number differed.

Two experiments examined long-term repetition priming in data entry. In each experiment, participants entered 4-digit numbers displayed as either words or numerals, and responded with digits (Experiment 1), or either digits or initial letters (Experiment 2). At test 1 week later, they entered old and new numbers, with the format changed for half of the old stimuli. Implicit memory was evidenced at test by faster entry of the old than the new numbers, regardless of whether the numbers were in the same or different format, suggesting that the abstract numerical meaning, not the surface form, contributes to repetition priming. Numbers presented as words in training had an advantage over numbers presented as numerals, regardless of response format, implying that type of processing also contributes to the effect and ruling out an explanation based on time spent processing numbers in word format.