FORWARD AND BACKWARD RECALL: DIFFERENT RETRIEVAL PROCESSES
Abstract
Recall direction is known to be an important determinant of serial recall performance: For example, accuracy is often greater for forward recall than backward recall, and forward recall typically exhibits extensive primacy but little recency, with the reverse arrangement for backward recall. Although some of the differences between recall directions can be accommodated by models that postulate a single retrieval process, recent evidence appears to favor the existence of 2 distinct retrieval processes, 1 for forward and 1 for backward recall. Five experiments reported in this article were aimed at illuminating these 2 putative processes. Tasks that interfered with the formation of interitem associations at study were found to disrupt forward but not backward recall, whereas tasks that altered the visual-spatial characteristics of the study material affected backward but not forward recall. It was proposed that forward recall is largely based on interitem associa tions, whereas backward recall relies on a visual-spatial representation of the study material.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Li & Lewandowsky (1995) show that changing the visual-spatial characteristics of participants' study material affects backward recall, but not forward recall.
“Li & Lewandowsky (1995) show that changing the visual-spatial characteristics of participants' study material affects backward recall, but not forward recall.”
From The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A" (2023) · cites this paper as Li & Lewandowsky, 1995
It has been claimed that the two recall directions depend on different mechanisms in humans.
“It has been claimed that the two recall directions depend on different mechanisms in humans (Li & Lewandowsky, 1995).”
From The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A" (2023) · cites this paper as Li & Lewandowsky, 1995
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 54 · Cited by 140
- Authors
- Li, S.-C., & Lewandowsky, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 837-847
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W1981927948
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 2.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- backward recall, serial recall, retrieval processes, primacy effect, recency effect, visual-spatial representation
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