Trial 1

Data summary

Type of selected items

Percentage of recalls

In original list

66.666664

Normal distractor (not in list)

0.0

Special distractor (not in list)

50.0

Trial-by-trial data

Each trial has possible recalls of: 7 words 'In list', 8 words 'Not in list' and 1 word as the 'Special distracter'.

Trial

User ID

Special distractor

Recalled in list

Recalled normal distractor

Recalled special distractor

1

psych475-9

needle

6.0

0.0

0.0

2

psych475-9

sleep

6.0

0.0

0.0

3

psych475-9

rough

2.0

0.0

1.0

4

psych475-9

chair

5.0

0.0

1.0

5

psych475-9

mountain

6.0

0.0

0.0

6

psych475-9

sweet

3.0

0.0

1.0


 

 

Trial 2

Data summary

Type of selected items

Percentage of recalls

In original list

92.85714

Normal distractor (not in list)

2.0833333

Special distractor (not in list)

0.0

Trial-by-trial data

Each trial has possible recalls of: 7 words 'In list', 8 words 'Not in list' and 1 word as the 'Special distracter'.

Trial

User ID

Special distractor

Recalled in list

Recalled normal distractor

Recalled special distractor

1

psych475-9

sleep

6.0

0.0

0.0

2

psych475-9

sweet

7.0

0.0

0.0

3

psych475-9

mountain

6.0

1.0

0.0

4

psych475-9

chair

7.0

0.0

0.0

5

psych475-9

needle

6.0

0.0

0.0

6

psych475-9

rough

7.0

0.0

0.0

 

 

From the data a significant difference can be seen from the two data sets. Before the special distractors are known they were picked in three of the trials. Once the special distractors are known this number drops to zero trials. The increase in accuracy in recollection can be attributed to the practice effect. In the first trial the subject is unaware of any relation the words may have, but after the trial it becomes evident that the relationship of the words on the list is much more apparent, causing a rise in accuracy as well as the normal distractor words.