Running Memory Span Development: The Input Mechanism and Hebb effect
Dublin Core
Title
Running Memory Span Development: The Input Mechanism and Hebb effect
Creator
Yu Xie
Date
2013
Description
It is unclear whether active strategy or passive strategy is used and whether the Hebb effect is elicited in the running memory task. The aim of this study was to explore the input mechanism and the Hebb effect in the running memory task via a developmental study. Children were asked to perform four working memory tasks: counting span task, free recall task, Hebb digit task, and running memory task. In order to explore the Hebb effect in the running memory task, the last three digits of every third list were repeated. The results suggested that running memory was a recency-based phenomenon and the Hebb effect is elicited in children.
Subject
running memory span development
input mechanism
Hebb effect
input mechanism
Hebb effect
Source
The experiment was presented using SuperLab 4.0 on a Sony Laptop with a 14-inch colour screen. The responses of participants were recorded by the tester on answer sheets. Every child completed a counting span task, a free recall task, a Hebb digit task, and a running memory task.
Counting span task. The counting span arrays were developed from Towse and Hitch (1995) and consisted of equal number of target triangles and non-target squares. The target triangles were red, approximately 30 mm in length, and the non-target squares were blue, approximately 28 mm in length. The number of both target triangles and non-target squares varied from 3 to 9 (mean = 6). The counting span arrays were presented on the centre of the computer screen with a white background. The triangles and squares were randomly displayed at different positions in every display.
Free recall task. For this task, 144 Chinese high-frequent two-syllable nouns (see Appendix A) were recorded by in a male’s voice at rate of 1 word per second. The words were recorded using Adobe Audition 3.0. Two practice lists and ten test lists were presented, and every list included 12 words at the rate of 1 word per second. The words were played by a computer.
Hebb digit task. All digit lists were created had the digits 1 to 9 in random order, avoiding any repetition of digits (see Appendix B). The voice of digits was recorded by Adobe Audition 3.0 at the rate of 1 digit per second. There were 2 practice lists and 24 test lists, and each list contained nine digits. Among the test lists, 16 lists were different, and the other 8 were the same – termed as Hebb list – presented on every third trial beginning on Trial 3. The 24 test lists were divided into 8 blocks, which involved 2 different lists and a Hebb list.
Running memory task. The lists included 12, 14, 16, 18, or 20 random digits from 1 to 9 (see Appendix C), which were recorded by voice. Two presentation rates were used in this task: 0.5 s per digit as the fast rate and 2.5 s per digit as the slow rate. In both conditions, there were 2 practice lists and 24 test lists. In order to test the Hebb effect in running memory task, the 24 test trials comprised 16 completely different lists, and 8 lists with the same last 3 digits which were the same and presented on every third trial.
Procedure
The experiment lasted 45 min, and every child completed 4 tasks. Each participant was seated on a chair in front of the computer screen, at a distance of 65 cm. All tasks included two practice trials for helping children be familiar with the procedure. Once children completed the practice trials and understood the procedure, they could proceed to the test trials. When children were performing the tasks, the experimenter gave no feedback about the accuracy of the words or digits. The order effect was counterbalanced as shown in the Table 1, which is a Latin Square design. Because there were two conditions in the running memory task, the fast speed and slow speed running, the tasks were counterbalanced. Therefore, in all, there were eight orders in the present study, and all children were equally divided into eight groups based on the eight orders. When participants completed each task, they were given sufficient time to rest.
Table 1
Task Orders for Four Tasks
Task
Orders
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Counting span task
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Free recall task
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
Hebb digit task
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
Running memory task
4(FS)
3(FS)
2(FS)
1(FS)
4(SF)
3(SF)
2(SF)
1(SF)
Note. F = Fast-running memory task, S = Slow-running memory task.
Counting span task. The children were informed to the counting and recall tasks. Before every trial, a fixation symbol was displayed on the centre of screen for 0.5 s. When the target triangles and non-target squares were presented, participants were required to count the red triangles aloud, and repeat the final number. Once the children repeated the last number, the experimenter pressed the keyboard to show the next display, and the counting speeds were recorded by the computer automatically. There were three trials in every level and every trial included the n + 1 displays in level n. For example, participants counted 2 displays in level 1 and 3 displays in level 2. The final level was level 4, which contained 5 displays. After 2 to 5 displays, children were asked to report all the final numbers of red target triangles in the previous displays. If a child failed to recall correctly for at least two of the three trials, the counting span task was ended at that level; otherwise, they could progress to the next level.
Free recall task. Children were required to listen to some words, and repeat them as many as possible in any order, after the 12th word. The experimenter wrote down the responses of participants on answer sheets. If the children could not report a new word within 30 s, the experimenter would proceed to the next trial.
Hebb digit task. The procedure for the Hebb digit task was developed by Hebb (1961). Children were asked to listen to every list, and report all digits in the right order. Children reported the digits orally, and the experimenter recorded the response on an answer sheet. Because the running memory task also involved Hebb lists, 48 children were asked whether they were aware of any regular pattern in the digit tasks after they completed both Hebb digit task and running memory task. Only 5 participants noticed the repetition in the running memory and Hebb digit tasks.
Running memory task. Children were made to listen to some digits, different from those in the Hebb digit task; they were required to repeat the last three digits rather than all digits in the list. Two conditions were set to counterbalance the order effect: half of the children were administered the fast rate condition first and the other half were administered the slow rate condition first.
Scoring
Counting span task. Counting errors and counting speed were recorded and the scoring method used is the partial-credit unit scoring prescribed by Conway et al. (2005). Firstly, the correct items in each sequence were counted. If all items were correct in a sequence, this sequence was given one point. Otherwise, the score of a sequence was based on the proportion of correct items. Finally, the counting span of a participant was calculated as the sum the scores for all sequences.
Free recall task. The scoring method used was the one prescribed by Tulving and Colotla (1970), which involved the calculation of intratrial retention interval (ITRI). The ITRI value was the number of items between the presentation and the reported items. For instance, if the sequence is A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, and a participant reported G, F, and A. The ITRISs for the items were 0, 2, and 8, respectively. Before calculating the ITRI, the digit span of the Hebb non-repeating lists was calculated for every child. If the digit span of a child was 5, the item would be classified as a word from primary memory when the ITRI was 5 or less, whereas the item would be classified as a word from the secondary memory when the ITRI was 6 or more.
Hebb digit task. Every digit recalled correctly at the correct position was scored one point. The score of the non-repeating lists was the mean score of each non-repeating list, and the score of the repeating lists was the mean score of each repeating list.
Running memory task. The score for the running memory span was calculated using the mean number of digits in the right positions. If 3 digits were recalled in correct sequence, the score was 3; if the sequence of 2 digits (for example the first and second digit, the second and the third digit, or the first and third digit) was in the correct serial order the score was 2; if there was a single digit in the correct position, the score was 1. Similar to the Hebb digit task, the scores for non-repeating and repeating lists were separated.
Counting span task. The counting span arrays were developed from Towse and Hitch (1995) and consisted of equal number of target triangles and non-target squares. The target triangles were red, approximately 30 mm in length, and the non-target squares were blue, approximately 28 mm in length. The number of both target triangles and non-target squares varied from 3 to 9 (mean = 6). The counting span arrays were presented on the centre of the computer screen with a white background. The triangles and squares were randomly displayed at different positions in every display.
Free recall task. For this task, 144 Chinese high-frequent two-syllable nouns (see Appendix A) were recorded by in a male’s voice at rate of 1 word per second. The words were recorded using Adobe Audition 3.0. Two practice lists and ten test lists were presented, and every list included 12 words at the rate of 1 word per second. The words were played by a computer.
Hebb digit task. All digit lists were created had the digits 1 to 9 in random order, avoiding any repetition of digits (see Appendix B). The voice of digits was recorded by Adobe Audition 3.0 at the rate of 1 digit per second. There were 2 practice lists and 24 test lists, and each list contained nine digits. Among the test lists, 16 lists were different, and the other 8 were the same – termed as Hebb list – presented on every third trial beginning on Trial 3. The 24 test lists were divided into 8 blocks, which involved 2 different lists and a Hebb list.
Running memory task. The lists included 12, 14, 16, 18, or 20 random digits from 1 to 9 (see Appendix C), which were recorded by voice. Two presentation rates were used in this task: 0.5 s per digit as the fast rate and 2.5 s per digit as the slow rate. In both conditions, there were 2 practice lists and 24 test lists. In order to test the Hebb effect in running memory task, the 24 test trials comprised 16 completely different lists, and 8 lists with the same last 3 digits which were the same and presented on every third trial.
Procedure
The experiment lasted 45 min, and every child completed 4 tasks. Each participant was seated on a chair in front of the computer screen, at a distance of 65 cm. All tasks included two practice trials for helping children be familiar with the procedure. Once children completed the practice trials and understood the procedure, they could proceed to the test trials. When children were performing the tasks, the experimenter gave no feedback about the accuracy of the words or digits. The order effect was counterbalanced as shown in the Table 1, which is a Latin Square design. Because there were two conditions in the running memory task, the fast speed and slow speed running, the tasks were counterbalanced. Therefore, in all, there were eight orders in the present study, and all children were equally divided into eight groups based on the eight orders. When participants completed each task, they were given sufficient time to rest.
Table 1
Task Orders for Four Tasks
Task
Orders
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Counting span task
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Free recall task
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
Hebb digit task
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
Running memory task
4(FS)
3(FS)
2(FS)
1(FS)
4(SF)
3(SF)
2(SF)
1(SF)
Note. F = Fast-running memory task, S = Slow-running memory task.
Counting span task. The children were informed to the counting and recall tasks. Before every trial, a fixation symbol was displayed on the centre of screen for 0.5 s. When the target triangles and non-target squares were presented, participants were required to count the red triangles aloud, and repeat the final number. Once the children repeated the last number, the experimenter pressed the keyboard to show the next display, and the counting speeds were recorded by the computer automatically. There were three trials in every level and every trial included the n + 1 displays in level n. For example, participants counted 2 displays in level 1 and 3 displays in level 2. The final level was level 4, which contained 5 displays. After 2 to 5 displays, children were asked to report all the final numbers of red target triangles in the previous displays. If a child failed to recall correctly for at least two of the three trials, the counting span task was ended at that level; otherwise, they could progress to the next level.
Free recall task. Children were required to listen to some words, and repeat them as many as possible in any order, after the 12th word. The experimenter wrote down the responses of participants on answer sheets. If the children could not report a new word within 30 s, the experimenter would proceed to the next trial.
Hebb digit task. The procedure for the Hebb digit task was developed by Hebb (1961). Children were asked to listen to every list, and report all digits in the right order. Children reported the digits orally, and the experimenter recorded the response on an answer sheet. Because the running memory task also involved Hebb lists, 48 children were asked whether they were aware of any regular pattern in the digit tasks after they completed both Hebb digit task and running memory task. Only 5 participants noticed the repetition in the running memory and Hebb digit tasks.
Running memory task. Children were made to listen to some digits, different from those in the Hebb digit task; they were required to repeat the last three digits rather than all digits in the list. Two conditions were set to counterbalance the order effect: half of the children were administered the fast rate condition first and the other half were administered the slow rate condition first.
Scoring
Counting span task. Counting errors and counting speed were recorded and the scoring method used is the partial-credit unit scoring prescribed by Conway et al. (2005). Firstly, the correct items in each sequence were counted. If all items were correct in a sequence, this sequence was given one point. Otherwise, the score of a sequence was based on the proportion of correct items. Finally, the counting span of a participant was calculated as the sum the scores for all sequences.
Free recall task. The scoring method used was the one prescribed by Tulving and Colotla (1970), which involved the calculation of intratrial retention interval (ITRI). The ITRI value was the number of items between the presentation and the reported items. For instance, if the sequence is A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, and a participant reported G, F, and A. The ITRISs for the items were 0, 2, and 8, respectively. Before calculating the ITRI, the digit span of the Hebb non-repeating lists was calculated for every child. If the digit span of a child was 5, the item would be classified as a word from primary memory when the ITRI was 5 or less, whereas the item would be classified as a word from the secondary memory when the ITRI was 6 or more.
Hebb digit task. Every digit recalled correctly at the correct position was scored one point. The score of the non-repeating lists was the mean score of each non-repeating list, and the score of the repeating lists was the mean score of each repeating list.
Running memory task. The score for the running memory span was calculated using the mean number of digits in the right positions. If 3 digits were recalled in correct sequence, the score was 3; if the sequence of 2 digits (for example the first and second digit, the second and the third digit, or the first and third digit) was in the correct serial order the score was 2; if there was a single digit in the correct position, the score was 1. Similar to the Hebb digit task, the scores for non-repeating and repeating lists were separated.
Publisher
Lancaster University
Format
data/SPSS.sav
Identifier
Xie2013
Contributor
John Towse
Rights
Open
Language
English
Chinese
Chinese
Type
Data
Coverage
LA1 4YF
LUSTRE
Supervisor
John Towse
Project Level
MSc
Topic
Developmental Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Sample Size
Fifty-seven Chinese primary school students (23 female, 34 male), aged between 7 and 13 years (Mean = 9 years 6 months; SD = 1.754) took part in the present study. The children were recruited from Grade one to Grade six at Tianyi School in Xuancheng City
Statistical Analysis Type
ANOVA
t-test
t-test
Files
Collection
Citation
Yu Xie, “Running Memory Span Development: The Input Mechanism and Hebb effect,” LUSTRE, accessed April 29, 2024, https://www.johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/items/show/23.