The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Forgetting in immediate serial recall: Decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference?
Open accessAbstract
Three hypotheses of forgetting from immediate memory were tested: time-based decay, decreasing temporal distinctiveness, and interference. The hypotheses were represented by 3 models of serial recall: the primacy model, the SIMPLE (scale-independent memory, perception, and learning) model, and the SOB (serial order in a box) model, respectively. The models were fit to 2 experiments investigating the effect of filled delays between items at encoding or at recall. Short delays between items, filled with articulatory suppression, led to massive impairment of memory relative to a no-delay baseline. Extending the delays had little additional effect, suggesting that the passage of time alone does not cause forgetting. Adding a choice reaction task in the delay periods to block attention-based rehearsal did not change these results. The interference-based SOB fit the data best; the primacy model overpredicted the effect of lengthening delays, and SIMPLE was unable to explain the effect of delays at encoding. The authors conclude that purely temporal views of forgetting are inadequate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83 · Cited by 994
A temporal ratio model of memory
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.3.539 · Cited by 798
On the interpretation of working memory span in adults.
Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J., & Hutton, U. (2000) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03198549 · Cited by 146
Cited by
Chapter 2 Design for a Working Memory
Oberauer, K. (2009) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(09)51002-x · Cited by 636
Self-citationThe problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking.
Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0018106 · Cited by 193
Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2010) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.42.2.563 · Cited by 184
Ward, G., Tan, L., & Grenfell-Essam, R. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0020122 · Cited by 159
A distributed representation of internal time
Howard, M. W., Shankar, K. H., Aue, W. R., & Criss, A. H. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0037840 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 544-576
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2142646240
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 10.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Forgetting in immediate serial recall: Decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.115.3.544
- The paper
- Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2008). Forgetting in immediate serial recall: Decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.115.3.544
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.