The variables of reproduction cue, activity during retention interval, and orientation of the recall movement were manipulated to assess simultaneously the viability of two hypotheses of motor short-term memory. Data partially supported hypotheses as positive response biasing was evident in recall after a filled retention interval (Pepper & Herman, 1970) and that for a given range of movements some adaption to a central reference level occurred (Laabs, 1973).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EllsonD. G.WheelerL.The range effect. Technical Report No. 4. Dayton, Ohio: Wright Patterson Air Force Base, United States Air Force, 1947.
LaabsG. J.Cue effects in motor short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 100, 168–177.
4.
MarteniukR. G.Retention characteristics of motor short-term memory cues. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1973, 5, 249–259.
5.
PepperR. L.HermanL. M.Decay and interference effects in the short-term retention of a discrete motor act. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 1–18.
6.
SchutzR. W.RoyE. A.Absolute error: The devil in disguise. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1973, 5, 141–153.
7.
SimmonsR. W.Response mechanisms underlying motor short-term memory. In LandersD. M. (Ed.), Psychology of sport and motor behavior: II.College Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State Univer. Press, 1975. Pp. 464–469.
8.
StelmachG. E.WilsonJ.Kinesthetic retention, movement extent and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 85, 425–430.
9.
WilliamsI. D.The effects of practice trials and prior learning in motor memory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1971, 3, 295–311.
