(Shaded regions indicate 1 standard error)

Modality Effect***

Inverse-Modality Effect***

Modality effects in free recall: A retrieved context accountJesse K. Pazdera & Michael J. Kahana

University of Pennsylvania

• Modality effect (ME): Enhanced recency for auditory vs. visual items• Inverse-modality effect (IME): Enhanced primacy for visual vs. auditory

items (Murdock & Walker, 1969; Craik, 1969; Grenfell-Essam, Ward, & Tan, 2017)

• Proposed explanations:• Greater capacity/persistence of auditory store (Craik, 1969; Murdock & Walker, 1969)

• Auditory items more temporally distinct (Glenberg & Swanson, 1986)

• Auditory items form stronger associations (Macken et al., 2016)

• Goal #1: Precisely describe the modality effect through the collection and analysis of a large dataset

• Goal #2: Account for modality effects within a retrieved context model of memory (CMR2) (Lohnas, Polyn, & Kahana, 2015; Polyn, Norman, & Kahana, 2009)

Background

Methods

• ME and IME appeared across all presentation rates and list lengths• PFR suggests ME did not result from increased accessibility of auditory words• Auditory presentation produced more distant PLIs than did visual presentation• ME and IME may be simulated by increasing context drift rate (Sim #1) or weakening the

formation of new item associations (Sim #2) during auditory presentation• Both simulations reduced primacy and increased recency performance without altering PFR• Reduced PLI recency is consistent with increased context drift during auditory presentation

Discussion

ReferencesContact

Name: Jesse PazderaEmail: jpazdera@sas.upenn.eduPhone: (215) 595-3723

Craik, F. I. M. (1969). Modality effects in short-term storage. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 658–664. Glenberg, A. M., & Swanson, N. G. (1986). A temporal distinctiveness theory of recency and modality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 3–15.Grenfell-Essam, R., Ward, G., & Tan, L. (2017). Common modality effects in immediate free recall and immediate serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

43(12), 1909-1933. Lohnas, L. J., Polyn, S. M., and Kahana, M. (2015). Expanding the scope of memory search: Intralist and interlist effects in free recall. Psychological Review, 122(2), 337-363.Macken, B., Taylor, J. C., Kozlov, M. D., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2016). Memory as embodiment: The case of modality and serial short-term memory. Cognition, 155, 113–124.Murdock, B. B., Jr., & Walker, K. D. (1969). Modality effects in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 665–676.Polyn, S. M., Norman, K. A., and Kahana, M. J. (2009a). A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall. Psychological Review, 116, 129-156.

• Online immediate free recall experiment using Amazon Mechanical Turk• 2000 participants completed 16 lists + FFR• Manipulations:

• Modality (M), List Length (LL), Presentation Rate (PR)• M varied across subjects; LL and PR varied within subjects

Time Between Onsets:

1.6s – 2.0sor

2.4s – 2.8s

Time Onscreen:0.8s or 1.6s

ISI0.8s – 1.2s

VisualPresentation

AuditoryPresentation

Words Per List:12 or 24

Free Recall:Typed

responses

“QUEEN”

“APPLE”

+

10s

1.5s

……

0.5s

60s

300s

Countdown

QUEEN

APPLE

*****

APPL

Final Free Recall

x16 Trials

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Serial Position Effects

Probability of First Recall

Modeling

n-5 n-4 n-3 n-2 n-1 nSerial Position

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

NormalizedRecallProb.

n-5 n-4 n-3 n-2 n-1 nSerial Position

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Prob.ofFirstRecall

V AS-12S-24F-12F-24

Plot shows recency performance normalized

by the SPC asymptote

Auditory presentation enhanced recency effects

across all conditions

Modality did not affect the likelihood of initiating recall

from the end of the list

(Shaded regions indicate 1 standard error)

Greater recency in visual task**

No difference in total intrusions

(Shaded regions indicate 1 standard error)

Prior-List Intrusions

Features

Context

MCF

(Influences recall)MFC

(Updates context)Context Maintenance and Retrieval Model

(CMR2)

Retriev

al Encoding

Simulation #1: Context Drift Rate

Simulation #2: Association Formation

Visual: βEnc = 0.52970

Auditory:βEnc = 0.53795

Visual:γFC = 0.76231γCF = 0.81379

Auditory:γFC = 0.71231 γCF = 0.77288