Staff Profile Pages

Item-specific proactive interference in olfactory working memory

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.

Journal: Memory

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 468-482

eISSN: 1464-0686

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1369546

Abstract:

We examine item-specific olfactory proactive interference (PI) effects and undertake comparisons with verbal and non-verbal visual stimuli. Using a sequential recent-probes task, we show no evidence for PI with hard-to-name odours (Experiment 1). However, verbalisable odours do exhibit PI effects (Experiment 2). These findings occur despite above chance performance and similar serial position functions across both tasks. Experiments 3 and 4 apply words and faces, respectively, to our modified procedure, and show that methodological differences cannot explain the null finding in Experiment 1. The extent to which odours exhibit analogous PI effects to that of other modalities is, we argue, contingent on the characteristics of the odours employed.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29719/

Source: Scopus

Item-specific proactive interference in olfactory working memory.

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.

Journal: Memory

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 468-482

eISSN: 1464-0686

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1369546

Abstract:

We examine item-specific olfactory proactive interference (PI) effects and undertake comparisons with verbal and non-verbal visual stimuli. Using a sequential recent-probes task, we show no evidence for PI with hard-to-name odours (Experiment 1). However, verbalisable odours do exhibit PI effects (Experiment 2). These findings occur despite above chance performance and similar serial position functions across both tasks. Experiments 3 and 4 apply words and faces, respectively, to our modified procedure, and show that methodological differences cannot explain the null finding in Experiment 1. The extent to which odours exhibit analogous PI effects to that of other modalities is, we argue, contingent on the characteristics of the odours employed.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29719/

Source: PubMed

Item-specific proactive interference in olfactory working memory

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.

Journal: MEMORY

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 468-482

eISSN: 1464-0686

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1369546

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29719/

Source: Web of Science (Lite)

Item-specific proactive interference in olfactory working memory

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley and Johnson, A.

Journal: Memory

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 468-482

Publisher: Psychology Press

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1369546

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29719/

Source: Manual

Item-specific proactive interference in olfactory working memory.

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.

Journal: Memory (Hove, England)

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 468-482

eISSN: 1464-0686

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1369546

Abstract:

We examine item-specific olfactory proactive interference (PI) effects and undertake comparisons with verbal and non-verbal visual stimuli. Using a sequential recent-probes task, we show no evidence for PI with hard-to-name odours (Experiment 1). However, verbalisable odours do exhibit PI effects (Experiment 2). These findings occur despite above chance performance and similar serial position functions across both tasks. Experiments 3 and 4 apply words and faces, respectively, to our modified procedure, and show that methodological differences cannot explain the null finding in Experiment 1. The extent to which odours exhibit analogous PI effects to that of other modalities is, we argue, contingent on the characteristics of the odours employed.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29719/

Source: Europe PubMed Central

Item-specific proactive interference in olfactory working memory.

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J.V. and Johnson, A.

Journal: Memory

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 468-482

ISSN: 0965-8211

Abstract:

We examine item-specific olfactory proactive interference (PI) effects and undertake comparisons with verbal and non-verbal visual stimuli. Using a sequential recent-probes task, we show no evidence for PI with hard-to-name odours (Experiment 1). However, verbalisable odours do exhibit PI effects (Experiment 2). These findings occur despite above chance performance and similar serial position functions across both tasks. Experiments 3 and 4 apply words and faces, respectively, to our modified procedure, and show that methodological differences cannot explain the null finding in Experiment 1. The extent to which odours exhibit analogous PI effects to that of other modalities is, we argue, contingent on the characteristics of the odours employed.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29719/

Source: BURO EPrints