| Title |
The specificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-013-0382-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tilo Strobach, Torsten Schubert, Harold Pashler, Timothy Rickard |
| Abstract |
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. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 30% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,290,667
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#945
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,739
of 212,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.