I found two people and applied the memory test items in two separate fashions: a) free recall, b) serial recall. What they could remember is as follows:
Person A (free recall) (27 years old, PhD student)
-4 3 0 7 1 8 -6 7 5 5 0 3 -5 1 6 8 5 4 -0 8 6 1 4 3 7 -1 2 8 9 3 3 8 5 -P T Y Q S L -A C W O I M X -P Q R T Y W I -J K C R W U -L A B O N N E M A I S O N -LEAF GIFT CAR FISH ROCK -PAPER BRUSH BEACH SEAT FILM TREE -BAG BOY FLOOR WIRE KEY -LOVE PAYMENT RULE FINE LAW -WHILE I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE WOODS A RABBIT RAN ACROSS MY PATH |
Person B (serial recall)(28 years old, PhD student)
-8 7 0 3 1 4 -7 1 5 0 5 4 -2 1 6 6 8 7 2 -6 8 1 4 3 -2 8 4 3 -T S Q P -C I X A -Q P -K W U C R J -L A B O N N E M A I S O N -LEAF GIFT ROCK -PAPER SEAT BRUSH -BAG KEY BANANA BOY -LOVE EMOTION PAYMENT -WHILE I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE WOODS A RABBIT RAN ACROSS MY PATH |
The data above point to recency and primacy effects for both free and serial recall. In other words, both of the participants did quite well at remembering the very first and final items in a given list. Moreover, it seems that serial recall made it more challenging to remember give items especially as the number of recall task increases. This might indicate that recalling becomes either boring or tiring or both over time thus decreasing recall performance. By and large, both of the participants remembered at most 7 items in a give set. The exception is “L A B O N N E M A I S O N” that was recalled perfectly by both of the participants. The free recall participant said that this set reminded him of the French article “La”, English “Bone” with an extra “n” in between, and English “maison”. Similarly, the serial recall participant claimed that the set reminded him of a French friend whose surname is “Labonte” in which one of the “n”s was replaced with “t” and English “maison”. Finally, both of the participants did perfectly at remembering the last set that constitutes a whole meaningful sentence.
In essence, I think the results show that our brains is somehow programmed to assign meaning to environmental stimuli that are easier to keep in mind. In other words, “meaningfulness” can be synthetic in that it can be created by the brain if possible, and maybe more importantly it can be processed and held more easily in memory. The second part of the sentence may also explain why the brain has a sort of possible evolutionary instinct to search for or assign meaning to stimuli. Who knows? Maybe, this is the same reason for why people go for a PhD: brain already has a PhD in making sense of everything including itself…(The bad news is this would lead to more question marks at best, or end up with meaninglessness at worst)… 8))
In essence, I think the results show that our brains is somehow programmed to assign meaning to environmental stimuli that are easier to keep in mind. In other words, “meaningfulness” can be synthetic in that it can be created by the brain if possible, and maybe more importantly it can be processed and held more easily in memory. The second part of the sentence may also explain why the brain has a sort of possible evolutionary instinct to search for or assign meaning to stimuli. Who knows? Maybe, this is the same reason for why people go for a PhD: brain already has a PhD in making sense of everything including itself…(The bad news is this would lead to more question marks at best, or end up with meaninglessness at worst)… 8))