Effect of Cueing on Recall

Introduction

Memory is a constructive process in which we relate memories to the meaning, guesses

and expectations that we give to the events the memory represents. (Feldman, 1999). Memory is
the procedure in which data is encoded, stored, and recovered. Encoding or enrolment is
receiving, processing and consolidating the received data. Storage is the production of a
permanent record of the encoded data in short term and long term memory. Recovery or recall is
getting back to back the stored information because of some cue for use in a process or action.
There are two main methods of accessing memory: recognition and recall. Recognition is the
association of an event or physical object with one previously experienced or encountered, and
involves a process of comparison of information with memory, e.g. recognizing a known face.
In cognitive psychology, a recall test is a test of memory in which participants are
presented with stimuli and then, after a delay, are asked to remember as many of the stimuli as
possible. Memory performance can be indicated by measuring the percentage of stimuli the
participant was able to recall. In a free recall test, a participant is simply asked to recall stimuli.
These stimuli could be words previously presented by the experimenter or events experienced
earlier in the participant's life. A cued recall test is a procedure for testing memory in which a
participant is presented with cues, such as words or phrases, to aid recall of previously
experienced stimuli. A cue is a stimulus, either consciously or unconsciously perceived, that
elicits or signals a type of behaviour.

This experiment is based on the experiment done by G. Wood. The original experiment
consisted of two sets of 30 words each. The first series were random words and the second series
consisted of words in categories, the categories which were used as cues.

The major advantage of recall memory was understood when Tulving proposed an
alternative to the two stage theory. He proposed that memory uses information both from the
particular memory trace and in addition from the environment in which it is recovered. Due to its
focus on the recovery environment or state, encoding specificity considers contextual cues, and it
additionally has some points of interest over the two-stage theory as it records for the fact that, in
practice, recognition is not superior to recall. Commonly, recall is better when the situations are
comparable in both the learning (encoding) and recall stages, recommending that contextual cues
are vital. Hence this method has been used to study memory in different settings. It also proved
to be helpful in learning and development. Some books are designed keeping some of these
memory techniques in mind. However, to be effective, the cue must relate to the way a subject
interpreted the item in the list.

The experiment shows that recall depends on the following factors,

1. The type of material

2. The number of items per cue

3. The rate of presentation

4. The mode of study

5. The nature of the cue

Review of literature

Study 1

Experiments based on this principle emerged on the same as well as later periods. Some
were prominent and influential. Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) conducted an experiment in
which they presented participants with a list of words to be remembered. The words were from
specific categories such as birds (pigeon, sparrow), furniture (chair, dresser), and professions
(engineer, lawyer). The categories were not made apparent in the original list. Participants in the
free recall group were asked to write down as many words as they could remember from the list.
Participants in the cued recall group were also asked to recall the words, but this group was
provided with the names of the categories, "birds," "furniture," and "professions." The results of
Tulving and Pearlstone's experiment demonstrate that retrieval cues aid memory. Participants in
the free recall group recalled 40 percent of the words, whereas participants in the cued recall
group recalled 75 percent of the words. Their test and its explanation came out in their article
written in 1966 – Availability and Accessibility of Information in memory of Words.

Study 2

Retrieval in cued recall by Santa, Ruskin and Snuttjer is another similar experiment
which focuses on the intensity of the cues. The present paper looks at the significance of a
recovery procedure by controlling the path in which cues are given amid recall. The goal is not to
differentiate the presence and absence of signals, be that as it may or may be to inquire in the
event that the structure of cueing impacts memory, i.e., are the test circumstances essential, and
is it conceivable to influence execution just by coordinating this order of recall? Along these
lines, the investigations are concerned with the structure of recall and the significance of an
efficient and organized output.

Methodology

Problem

To study the effect of cueing on recall.

Hypothesis

Cueing has a positive effect on recall.

Variables

Independent variable: The presence of cues in the second series

Dependent variable: The number of words correctly recalled in each list

Controls/ Precautions

1. The time of exposure is limited to two seconds per word.

2. A five minute rest pause is given between series to avoid fatigue.
Plan

Compare recall under the two conditions of free and cues recall – each given in a separate
series.

Material

1. Two lists of words of thirty words each, where –

a. The words in list A are selected randomly
b. The words in list B are selected in such a way that they fall into five categories
with six words in each category.
2. Plain response sheet for recall of list A.
3. Response sheet with the names of five categories printed on them for recall of list B.
4. Stop clock.

Procedure

Series 1 – Free recall: Instruct the subject that the experimenter will present in a list of
words verbally. The subject has to listen carefully so as to recall them later. Present list A in an
even tone at the rate of two seconds per word. Then given the subject the plain response sheet
and ask him/her to recall the list. Allow three minutes for recall.

Allow five minutes rest pause before beginning the second series.

Series 2 – Cued recall: Present list B in the same manner as list A. then give the subject
the response sheet with names of the five categories and ask the subject to write down as many
words from the list as he/she can recall. Allow three minutes for recall.

Instruction

“Listen to the words actively as I read them out, as you have to recall them later.”
Analysis of result

1. Find the number of words correctly recalled from each list separately.
2. Calculate the difference; Difference = score in series 2 – score in series 1.
3. Calculate mean for the group.

Introspection Report

The subject reported that in terms of recall, categories to facilitate recall in Series 2 seemed
really helpful.

Results and Discussions

The aim of the experiment is to study the effect of cueing on recall using the cued- recall
procedure. This is the form of memory testing that incorporates particular cues for recall of
specific information. It was hypothesized that cueing has a positive effect on recall. The
experiment was conducted in two series namely free recall and cued recall. In the free recall
series the subject recalls a list of ‘to be remembered’ (TBR) information without the use of cues.
In the cued recall series the subject remembers TBR information consisting of words which are
carefully selected based on their relationship specific cues.

Table 1. Showing the subject’s results on the two series of the experiment

Name Free Recall (Series 1) Cued Recall (Series 2) Difference (B- A)

M.S.B 15 22 7

The experiment was conducted on subject M.S.B, a 20 year old female undergraduate
student and the results are shown in Table 1. On series 1 that is free recall, the subject recalled a
total of 15 words. On series 2 that is cued recall, the subject recalled a total of 22 words. The
difference between the two series is found to be 7. This indicates that there has been an increase
in the number of words in series 2. Thus the hypothesis that cueing has a positive effect on recall
has been confirmed by the subject’s results.

Table 2. Showing the group’s results on the two series of the experiment
 S.No Name Free recall Cued recall Difference
( Series 1) ( Series 2) ( Series 2 - 1)
1 A.K 15 18 3
2 S.G 16 21 5
3 K.P 18 21 3
4 S.S.S 7 16 9
5 S.S 15 26 11
6 V.S 16 13 -3
7 M.J 11 19 8
8 A.A 18 23 5
9 H.J 9 18 9
10 S.K 8 21 13
11 S.T 12 22 10
12 A.R 8 17 9
13 M.S.B 15 22 7

Total 168 257 89

Mean 12.92 19.76 6.84

The experiment was conducted on a group of 13 undergraduate students- 3 males and 10

females ranging in age from 19- 21 years and the results are shown in Table 2. On Series 1 that is
free recall, the group has obtained a mean score of 12.92 and on Series 2 that is cued recall, the
group has on an average recalled 19.7 words. The mean difference between the two series is
6.84. This indicates that the group has recalled more words in Series 2 than Series 1. Thus the
group’s results has confirmed the hypothesis that cueing has a positive effect on recall.

Individual differences are found in the group. One subject (V.S) has recalled lesser
number of words in Series 2 that Series 1 thus disconfirming the hypothesis.

The range of the differences between Series 1 and 2 is (-3) to 13 with subject V.S
recording a difference of (-3) and subject S.K recording a difference of 13.

Conclusion

1. The subject (M.S.B) ‘s results confirm the hypothesis

2. The group’s results confirm the hypothesis

3. Individual differences are found in the group

Reference

Feldman (2011) Understanding Psychology. Delhi Tata Mc Graw Hill.

Memory. Retrieved June 15, 2016, from http://wikipedia.org

Human Memory. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from http://www.human-

memory.net/processes_recall.html
Tulving, E., & Watkins,M.(1973). Continuity between Recall and Recognition. The American
Journal of Psychology, 86(4) , 739 – 748. Doi: 1. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1422081
Santa, Ruskin, Snuttjer & Baker.(1975,1999). Retrieval in Cued Recall. Memory and Cognition,
(3), 341-348. Doi: 10.3758/BF03212922