{"id":{"repo_id":"essex","oai_identifier":"oai:repository.essex.ac.uk:15490"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/essex/oai:repository.essex.ac.uk:15490","repository":{"repo_id":"essex","name":"University of Essex","base_url":"https://repository.essex.ac.uk/cgi/oai2"},"display":{"title":"Comparing the immediate free recall of verbal and visuo-spatial stimuli:List length, capacity and output order effects in single- and dual-modality tasks","abstract":"When participants are presented with a list of words, and are asked to recall the items in any order (Immediate Free Recall; IFR), they tend to initiate their recall with the first list item when presented with short lists and with one of the last four items in longer lists. Chapter 2 examined whether this tendency necessitates a language-based retrieval mechanism by replicating and extending this finding in verbal and visuo-spatial IFR. The observed similarities between the two modalities are argued to be reflective of either a domain-general retrieval mechanism that operates on all stimuli at all timescales, or two domain-specific mechanisms that operate in quasi-identical ways. To distinguish between these two possibilities, Chapter 3 compared capacity and output order effects in both stimulus domains in single- and dual-modality IFR tasks. The number of items recalled in dual-modality IFR suggest partially independent capacities, but the output orders across the two modalities were greatly constrained; findings that cannot be fully explained through either a domain-general or domain-specific framework. Additionally, participants' tendency to alternate across modalities may be due to one-to-one associations of auditory words with the contemporaneous visuo-spatial locations. Consequently, Chapter 4 examined whether this alternating output strategy is still present when list structure is completely randomised and the items temporally off-set. I argue that this tendency is not entirely due to some form of binding but may, at least in part, reflect the most efficient way of outputting a mixed-modality list. Moreover, the asymmetry in the recall accuracy of the two modalities is due to increased number of to-be-recalled stimuli rather than increased output interference. I suggest that overall, a domain-general approach, such as the Embedded Processes model (Cowan, 2005), coupled with a forward-ordered retrieval mechanism based on temporal grouping (Farrell, 2012) is better placed to account for these novel findings.","abstract_html":"When participants are presented with a list of words, and are asked to recall the items in any order (Immediate Free Recall; IFR), they tend to initiate their recall with the first list item when presented with short lists and with one of the last four items in longer lists. Chapter 2 examined whether this tendency necessitates a language-based retrieval mechanism by replicating and extending this finding in verbal and visuo-spatial IFR. The observed similarities between the two modalities are argued to be reflective of either a domain-general retrieval mechanism that operates on all stimuli at all timescales, or two domain-specific mechanisms that operate in quasi-identical ways. To distinguish between these two possibilities, Chapter 3 compared capacity and output order effects in both stimulus domains in single- and dual-modality IFR tasks. The number of items recalled in dual-modality IFR suggest partially independent capacities, but the output orders across the two modalities were greatly constrained; findings that cannot be fully explained through either a domain-general or domain-specific framework. Additionally, participants' tendency to alternate across modalities may be due to one-to-one associations of auditory words with the contemporaneous visuo-spatial locations. Consequently, Chapter 4 examined whether this alternating output strategy is still present when list structure is completely randomised and the items temporally off-set. I argue that this tendency is not entirely due to some form of binding but may, at least in part, reflect the most efficient way of outputting a mixed-modality list. Moreover, the asymmetry in the recall accuracy of the two modalities is due to increased number of to-be-recalled stimuli rather than increased output interference. I suggest that overall, a domain-general approach, such as the Embedded Processes model (Cowan, 2005), coupled with a forward-ordered retrieval mechanism based on temporal grouping (Farrell, 2012) is better placed to account for these novel findings.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Cortis, Cathleen"],"institution":"University of Essex","degree_name":"phd","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-11","date_published":"2015-11","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:18:03Z","subjects":["BF Psychology"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":null,"outbound_label":null,"outbound_source":null},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["Silberrad Fund","Malta Government Scholarship Scheme"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Cortis, Cathleen"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-11-17"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2015-11"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Department of Psychology"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Essex"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://repository.essex.ac.uk/15490/"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["phd"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["BF Psychology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://repository.essex.ac.uk/15490/1/Cathleen%20Cortis%20-%20PhD%20Thesis.pdf"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["When participants are presented with a list of words, and are asked to recall the items in any order (Immediate Free Recall; IFR), they tend to initiate their recall with the first list item when presented with short lists and with one of the last four items in longer lists. Chapter 2 examined whether this tendency necessitates a language-based retrieval mechanism by replicating and extending this finding in verbal and visuo-spatial IFR. The observed similarities between the two modalities are argued to be reflective of either a domain-general retrieval mechanism that operates on all stimuli at all timescales, or two domain-specific mechanisms that operate in quasi-identical ways. To distinguish between these two possibilities, Chapter 3 compared capacity and output order effects in both stimulus domains in single- and dual-modality IFR tasks. The number of items recalled in dual-modality IFR suggest partially independent capacities, but the output orders across the two modalities were greatly constrained; findings that cannot be fully explained through either a domain-general or domain-specific framework. Additionally, participants' tendency to alternate across modalities may be due to one-to-one associations of auditory words with the contemporaneous visuo-spatial locations. Consequently, Chapter 4 examined whether this alternating output strategy is still present when list structure is completely randomised and the items temporally off-set. I argue that this tendency is not entirely due to some form of binding but may, at least in part, reflect the most efficient way of outputting a mixed-modality list. Moreover, the asymmetry in the recall accuracy of the two modalities is due to increased number of to-be-recalled stimuli rather than increased output interference. I suggest that overall, a domain-general approach, such as the Embedded Processes model (Cowan, 2005), coupled with a forward-ordered retrieval mechanism based on temporal grouping (Farrell, 2012) is better placed to account for these novel findings."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["text"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comparing the immediate free recall of verbal and visuo-spatial stimuli:List length, capacity and output order effects in single- and dual-modality tasks"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.sponsor":["Silberrad Fund","Malta Government Scholarship Scheme"],"dc:creator":["Cortis, Cathleen"],"dc:date":["2015-11-17"],"dc:date.issued":["2015-11"],"dc:description.abstract":["When participants are presented with a list of words, and are asked to recall the items in any order (Immediate Free Recall; IFR), they tend to initiate their recall with the first list item when presented with short lists and with one of the last four items in longer lists. Chapter 2 examined whether this tendency necessitates a language-based retrieval mechanism by replicating and extending this finding in verbal and visuo-spatial IFR. The observed similarities between the two modalities are argued to be reflective of either a domain-general retrieval mechanism that operates on all stimuli at all timescales, or two domain-specific mechanisms that operate in quasi-identical ways. To distinguish between these two possibilities, Chapter 3 compared capacity and output order effects in both stimulus domains in single- and dual-modality IFR tasks. The number of items recalled in dual-modality IFR suggest partially independent capacities, but the output orders across the two modalities were greatly constrained; findings that cannot be fully explained through either a domain-general or domain-specific framework. Additionally, participants' tendency to alternate across modalities may be due to one-to-one associations of auditory words with the contemporaneous visuo-spatial locations. Consequently, Chapter 4 examined whether this alternating output strategy is still present when list structure is completely randomised and the items temporally off-set. I argue that this tendency is not entirely due to some form of binding but may, at least in part, reflect the most efficient way of outputting a mixed-modality list. Moreover, the asymmetry in the recall accuracy of the two modalities is due to increased number of to-be-recalled stimuli rather than increased output interference. I suggest that overall, a domain-general approach, such as the Embedded Processes model (Cowan, 2005), coupled with a forward-ordered retrieval mechanism based on temporal grouping (Farrell, 2012) is better placed to account for these novel findings."],"dc:format":["text"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://repository.essex.ac.uk/15490/1/Cathleen%20Cortis%20-%20PhD%20Thesis.pdf"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:publisher.department":["Department of Psychology"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Essex"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://repository.essex.ac.uk/15490/"],"dc:subject":["BF Psychology"],"dc:title":["Comparing the immediate free recall of verbal and visuo-spatial stimuli:List length, capacity and output order effects in single- and dual-modality tasks"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["phd"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:18:03Z"}