Short- and long-term memory tasks predict working memory performance, and vice versa.

The Brown-Peterson, operation span, and continual distractor tasks all require people to retain information while performing a distractor task. Scale Independent Memory, Perception, and Learning (SIMPLE), a local relative distinctiveness model, has been fit to aspects of each task and offers the same explanation for each: the distractor task serves to space the items out in time and memory performance depends on the relative distinctiveness of the target item at the time of recall. If this is correct, it follows that performance on all three tasks should correlate, even though the tasks have, at various times, been ascribed to different memory systems, short-term memory, working memory, and long-term memory, respectively. We tested 190 subjects on all three tasks and found that performance on all three tasks is significantly correlated. We then fit the data from each task using SIMPLE. We argue that these results support the relative distinctiveness principle (Surprenant & Neath, 2009). We contrast SIMPLE with other models of the same tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Word length, set size, and lexical factors: Re-examining what causes the word length effect.

The word length effect, better recall of lists of short (fewer syllables) than long (more syllables) words has been termed a benchmark effect of working memory. Despite this, experiments on the word length effect can yield quite different results depending on set size and stimulus properties. Seven experiments are reported that address these 2 issues. Experiment 1 replicated the finding of a preserved word length effect under concurrent articulation for large stimulus sets, which contrasts with the abolition of the word length effect by concurrent articulation for small stimulus sets. Experiment 2, however, demonstrated that when the short and long words are equated on more dimensions, concurrent articulation abolishes the word length effect for large stimulus sets. Experiment 3 shows a standard word length effect when output time is equated, but Experiments 4-6 show no word length effect when short and long words are equated on increasingly more dimensions that previous demonstrations have overlooked. Finally, Experiment 7 compared recall of a small and large neighborhood words that were equated on all the dimensions used in Experiment 6 (except for those directly related to neighborhood size) and a neighborhood size effect was still observed. We conclude that lexical factors, rather than word length per se, are better predictors of when the word length effect will occur. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).