INFORMATION, ACOUSTIC CONFUSION AND MEMORY SPAN.

By R. Conrad, A. J. Hull. 1964

Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology (2015, background): “Words that sound the same are also prone to confusion, leading to poorer recall for the whole list of items: this “phonological similarity effect” influences maintenance of verbal material, but also visual material that has been verbally rehearsed (Conrad & Hull, 1964).”
Reevaluating key evidence for the development of rehearsal: phonological similarity effects in children are subject to proportional scaling artifacts. (2013, background): “The phonological similarity effect reflects superior recall of phonologically dissimilar stimuli than of phonologically similar items (Conrad & Hull, 1964).”
Is working memory still working? (2001, background): “The store was assumed to be reflected in the phonological similarity effect, whereby immediate serial recall of items that are similar in sound (e.g., the letters B, V, G, T, C, D) is poorer than that of dissimilar items (e.g., F, K, Y, W, M, R; Conrad & Hull, 1964).”
Reading Difficulties in Adult Deaf Readers of French: Phonological Codes, Not Guilty! (2012, background): “…information, with a different time-course for each code in word recognition (Ferrand & Grainger, 1994; Lee et al., 1999; Ziegler, Ferrand, Jacobs, Rey, & Grainger, 2000), and an inhibitory effect caused by phonological similarity between written words (Baddeley, 1966; Conrad & Hull, 1964).”
How language production shapes language form and comprehension (2012, background): “…that the to-be-remembered elements interfere with one another in memory during the short interval between their presentation and recall, with increasing interference when the elements share similarity in sound, meaning, spatial location, or other dimensions (Conrad and Hull, 1964; Anderson, 1983).”
Short-term memory for serial order: a recurrent neural network model. (2006, background): “Empirical data (light traces) are from Crannell and Parrish (1957). From left to right, the data series relate to recall for words (unrestricted stimulus set), words (restricted set), letters (unrestricted), letters (restricted), and digits.”
The Search for the Phonological Store: From Loop to Convolution (2008, background): “The store, then, lacks a mechanism of reactivating its own contents but possesses memory capacity while, conversely, the articulatory rehearsal process lacks an intrinsic memory capacity of its own, but can exert its effect indirectly by refreshing the contents of the store.”
Perceptual organization masquerading as phonological storage: Further support for a perceptual-gestural view of short-term memory (2006, background): “The empirical signature of the action of the phonological store is the PSE: items that sound alike (e.g., ''b d g t c'') are serially recalled more poorly than dissimilar sounding items (''f q r h y''; Conrad, 1964; Conrad & Hull, 1964), even when presented visually.”
The Phonological Loop (2010, methodology): “…was tapped by the phonological similarity effect (in which subjects less accurately recall sequences of phonologically similar letters or words; Conrad and Hull 1964), and an articulatory rehearsal system, which was evidenced by the word length effect, in which the immediate memory for word…”
Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). (2002, background): “Just and Carpenter’s central measure of linguistic working memory is Daneman and Carpenter’s (1980) reading span task, in which participants read sentences aloud and remember sentence-final words for later recall.”