Are Channels Relevant to Order of Recall? Yes

Abstract

Lists of 2 pairs and 3 pairs of digits were presented dichotically (different digits to each ear) and mixed (both simultaneous digits to each ear) at a rate of 2 pairs per sec. to 32 men 17 to 39 yr. old. At each list length, a higher proportion of correctly recalled lists was reported sequentially for dichotic than for mixed lists. An interaction between order (whether dichotic lists were presented before or after mixed lists) and presentation condition suggests that dichotic listening induces sequential responding which also increases the incidence of sequential responding to mixed lists (immediately following dichotic lists) for some subjects. Savin's finding that channels are not necessary for sequential responding was replicated and extended to 3-pair lists; but his assertion that channels serve no role in sequential responding was contradicted by these results.