BOUSFIELD 1953 PDF

of Clustering in the Recall of Randomly Arranged Associates · W. A. Bousfield et al. The Journal of Psychology. Volume 36, – Issue 1. Bousfield, W.A. BousfieldThe occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 49 (), pp. Psychol., 49 (), pp. Google Scholar. Bousfield et al., W.A. Bousfield, B.H. Cohen, G.A. WhitmarshAssociative clustering in the recall of words.

Author: Kajibei Doutilar
Country: Ghana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 2 February 2015
Pages: 216
PDF File Size: 11.7 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.72 Mb
ISBN: 480-9-34358-628-5
Downloads: 89271
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dagor

We select the word with the highest semantic similarity as the next recall, i 2and remove i 2 from the pool. Using fMRI brain activation to identify cognitive states associated with perception of tools and dwellings. Rather, a near-ceiling clustering score may reflect the specific sequence of bbousfield presented to the participant, or the specific structure of the experiment.

Abstract The order in which participants choose to recall words from a studied list of randomly selected words provides insights into how memories of the words are represented, organized, and retrieved.

Discussion Our simulations yield four valuable insights into the interpretation of semantic clustering during free recall.

Journal of 195 and Social Psychology. However, for the second batch of simulations, we generated recall sequences that maximized the semantic clustering scores according to WAS-derived similarity.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

An analysis of sequences of restricted associative responses. Table 1 Simulation word pool. Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material. This panel is identical to panel E, but here we generated recall sequences that maximized the LSA-derived semantic clustering scores, and plot the distribution of observed mean WAS-derived clustering scores.

Measuring semantic clustering effects requires making assumptions about which words participants consider to be similar in meaning. In the present manuscript we use simulations to study these questions. Predicting clustering from semantic structure.

The same 5, randomly chosen item lists were used bousfifld both panels. We have focused on a single semantic clustering metric, the semantic clustering score Polyn et al.

Interpreting semantic clustering effects in free recall.

University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA: Generating recall sequences that maximize the semantic clustering score As defined above, the semantic clustering score according to metric g p is maximized i. In theory, one could estimate g p for a given participant by having the participant make judgements about the semantic similarities between each pair of studied words.

For example, the recency and primacy effects refer to the well-established tendency of participants to show superior recall of items from the ends, and to a lesser extent, from the beginnings of the studied lists Deese and Kaufman, ; Murdock, Latent semantic analysis LSA; Landauer and Dumais, derives a set of pairwise similarity values by examining the co-occurrences of words in a large text corpus.

Introduction The free recall paradigm has participants study lists of items — typically words — and subsequently recall the studied items in the order they come to mind. One might accomplish this by using, for example, an LSA-derived scoring model while using a WAS-derived internal similarity model in their simulation or vice versa as we have done here.

The order in which participants choose to recall words from a studied list of randomly selected words provides insights into how memories of the words are represented, organized, and retrieved. If one observes or fails to observe a similar pattern of clustering scores across experimental conditions when using multiple semantic similarity models e. The semantic clustering score, developed by Polyn et al. Weobtain a single semantic clustering score for each simulated participant by averaging the semantic clustering scores across all lists that the participant encountered.

In such cases, one might use simulations analogous to those we present here to gain insights into the range of clustering scores one might expect under various models boussfield. Our results provide a number of useful insights into the interpretation of semantic clustering effects in free recall. Our simulations yield four valuable insights into the interpretation of semantic clustering during free recall. One pervasive finding is that when a pair of semantically related words e.

A neurosemantic theory of concrete noun representation based on underlying brain codes. Given that the clustering scores obtained using any given model of semantic similarity are likely to be only noisy reflections of any true patterns in the data, one should use multiple models of semantic similarity whenever possible. Associative clustering during recall. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Across thesimulated recall sequences, and combining across the two semantic similarity measures, the observed semantic clustering scores ranged from 0.

A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall. There is some evidence that similarities in the neural patterns evoked by thinking about a given pair of words predict the tendencies of participants to successively recall the words, given that both appeared on the studied lists Manning, By contrast, measuring semantic clustering requires making assumptions about what each word means to each participant.

The Google similarity distance.