JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 20, 564-574 (1981)

Short-Term Memory Processes in Text Comprehension

CHARLES R. FLETCHER

University o f Colorado

Because o f the limited capacity o f the short-term, working m e m o r y system, texts must
be processed one sentence or major clause at a time m cycles. This cyclical processing
strategy eliminates the limited capacity p r o b l e m but creates a new one; namely: H o w
does a reader maintain the coherence of a text which must be processed in f r a g m e n t s ?
Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) have suggested that part of short-term m e m o r y is set aside
as a buffer in which propositions from earlier processing cycles are held over to grade
the integration of new propositions into the long-term representation of the text as a
whole. T w o experiments are presented which provide empirical support for this claim.
Using the K m t s c h and van Dijk ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1978, 85, 363-394) model to
predict which propositions would be selected for inclusion in the short-term buffer, it
was demonstrated that selected propositions are more available to subjects than unse-
lected p r o p o s i t i o n s from the same part of the text, and that the latter are no more
available than unselected propositions from earlier in the text.

T o u n d e r s t a n d a t e x t a r e a d e r has to
d o m o r e t h a n c o m p u t e the m e a n i n g s o f
individual words. He must understand
the i d e a s e x p r e s s e d b y c o m b i n a t i o n s o f
word meanings (generally represented
as p r o p o s i t i o n s ) and m u s t a l s o u n d e r -
s t a n d the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h o s e
i d e a s . T h i s is c l e a r l y a c o m p l e x t a s k ,
y e t it is a c c o m p l i s h e d in r e a l t i m e b y a
human information-processing system
with many built-in limitations. Among
the m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f t h e s e is the l i m -
ited c a p a c i t y o f the s h o r t - t e r m , w o r k i n g
m e m o r y s y s t e m ( M i l l e r , 1956; S i m o n ,
1974). In this p a p e r w e will be c o n -
c e r n e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h h o w this l i m i t a -
tion a f f e c t s h u m a n t e x t c o m p r e h e n s i o n
This report is based on a m a s t e r ' s thesis presented
to the Graduate School of the University of Colorado
and was supported by National Institute of Mental
Health Grant 15872 to Walter Kintsch. I would like
to thank Walter Kintsch, Jim Miller, Lyle Bourne,
Peter Poison, Bill Walker, Steve Antos, and Lisa
Van der Veer for their many helpful c o m m e n t s . Re-
print requests should be sent to Charles R. Fletcher,
Department of P s y c h o l o g y , University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309.
564
0022-5371/81/050564-11502.00/0
Copyright © 1981by Academic Press, Inc
A11rights of reproductmn in any formreserved.
and c o n s t r a i n s t h e o r e t i c a l a t t e m p t s to
m o d e l that p r o c e s s .
J a r v e l l a (1971) p r e s e n t e d listeners with
b r i e f s t o r i e s . E a c h w a s i n t e r r u p t e d at
s o m e p o i n t a n d s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d to
r e c a l l as m u c h o f the s t o r y as t h e y c o u l d
verbatim. The results showed high ver-
b a t i m r e c a l l o f the m o s t r e c e n t l y h e a r d
c l a u s e or s e n t e n c e , b u t u n i f o r m l y l o w
p e r f o r m a n c e f o r a n y t h i n g e a r l i e r in the
story. These results have been con-
firmed by Caplan (1972) using recogni-
tion l a t e n c i e s as the r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e
and by Chang (1980) who used written
r a t h e r t h a n s p o k e n texts. E a c h o f t h e s e
s t u d i e s has c o n c l u d e d that s e n t e n c e s and
m a j o r c l a u s e s s e r v e as u n i t s o f c o m p r e -
h e n s i o n ; that a c l a u s e is i n p u t into short-
t e r m m e m o r y , that it is p r o c e s s e d se-
m a n t i c a l l y a n d its m e a n i n g s t o r e d in
l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y , and that s h o r t - t e r m
m e m o r y is t h e n p u r g e d to m a k e r o o m
f o r the n e x t c l a u s e . T h i s c y c l i c a l p r o -
c e s s i n g s t r a t e g y is a c l e a r r e s u l t o f the
limited capacity of short-term memory.
T h e e n t i r e t e x t c a n not be h e l d in short-
 SHORT-TERM
t e r m m e m o r y s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and so it
m u s t be b r o k e n up into m a n a g e a b l e units.
The cyclical processing of texts pro-
vides a m e c h a n i s m for dealing with large
a m o u n t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , but in d o i n g so
it c r e a t e s its o w n d i f f i c u l t y . S p e c i f i -
c a l l y , h o w d o e s a r e a d e r m a i n t a i n the
coherence of a text between cycles?
W h e n the i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m one c y c l e is
s t o r e d in l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y it m u s t b e
c o n n e c t e d to the i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m p r e -
v i o u s c y c l e s . O n e w a y to do this w o u l d
b e to s e a r c h the l o n g - t e r m r e p r e s e n t a -
tion o f the t e x t a f t e r e a c h c y c l e to find
an a p p r o p r i a t e c o n n e c t i o n . But this s e e m s
like an i n e f f i c i e n t w a y f o r an i n f o r m a -
t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g s y s t e m to w o r k s i n c e it
f a i l s to t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f the i n h e r e n t
structure of a text. A more satisfactory
a l t e r n a t i v e w h i c h h a s r e c e i v e d s o m e ex-
perimental support (e.g., Spilich, Ve-
s o n d e r , C h e i s i , & V o s s , 1979; M i l l e r &
K i n t s c h , 1980; K i n t s c h & v a n D i j k ,
1978) h a s b e e n o f f e r e d b y K i n t s c h a n d
v a n D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) . T h e y s u g g e s t that p a r t
o f the s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y s y s t e m is set
a s i d e as a b u f f e r w h i c h c o n t a i n s p r o p o -
s i t i o n s f r o m e a r l i e r in the t e x t . A f t e r
each processing cycle some subset of
p r o p o s i t i o n s is h e l d o v e r in this b u f f e r
f o r p r o c e s s i n g a l o n g w i t h the n e w p r o p -
ositions f r o m the next cycle. The strategy
for selecting these propositions is critical,
f o r if t h e y are s e l e c t e d w i s e l y t h e y will
b e c o h e r e n t w i t h the n e w p r o p o s i t i o n s
a n d will p r o v i d e e a s y a c c e s s to the ap-
p r o p r i a t e s t o r a g e l o c a t i o n in l o n g - t e r m
memory.
The operation of such a buffer model
has b e e n d e s c r i b e d b y Miller and K i n t s c h
( 1 9 8 0 ) w h o h a v e f o r m a l i z e d the t h e o r e t -
ical ideas o f K i n t s c h and v a n Dijk (1978)
as a c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m . T h e i r m o d e l
t a k e s as i n p u t an o r d e r e d list o f p r o p o -
s i t i o n s , w h e r e the o r d e r is d e t e r m i n e d
b y the o r d e r o f the r e l a t i o n a l t e r m s in
the s u r f a c e t e x t . T h e p r o p o s i t i o n list is
t h e n p r o c e s s e d in g r o u p s o f s e v e r a l
p r o p o s i t i o n s at a t i m e . T h i s g r o u p i n g
MEMORY AND TEXT 565
p r o c e s s is c a r r i e d out b y a n u m b e r o f
s i m p l e h e u r i s t i c s . T h e s e h e u r i s t i c s ter-
minate a chunk whenever a sentence
b o u n d a r y is e n c o u n t e r e d or if t h e y de-
t e c t a s e m a n t i c d i s c o n t i n u i t y in the sen-
t e n c e . T h e s e g m e n t e d p r o p o s i t i o n list is
t h e n p r o c e s s e d in c y c l e s . D u r i n g e a c h
c y c l e the c u r r e n t p r o p o s i t i o n s are p l a c e d
in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y w h e r e t h e y are or-
g a n i z e d into a c o h e r e n c e g r a p h b y c o n -
necting propositions which share a com-
m o n a r g u m e n t ( K i n t s c h , 1974). E a c h
p r o p o s i t i o n is t h e n s t o r e d in l o n g - t e r m
m e m o r y w i t h s o m e p r o b a b i l i t y . In o r d e r
to m a i n t a i n c o h e r e n c e b e t w e e n c y c l e s a
connected subset of propositions from
e a c h c y c l e is h e l d in a s h o r t - t e r m m e m -
o r y b u f f e r a l o n g w i t h a p o i n t e r to its
s t o r a g e l o c a t i o n in l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y .
T h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s are t h e n r e p r o c e s s e d
a l o n g w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n s that e n t e r
d u r i n g the n e x t c y c l e . I f the h e l d p r o p -
o s i t i o n s are c o h e r e n t w i t h the n e w in-
p u t , t h e y d e t e r m i n e w h e r e it will be
s t o r e d in l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y . O t h e r w i s e ,
c o h e r e n c e is m a i n t a i n e d b y s e a r c h i n g
long-term memory for a connecting
p r o p o s i t i o n or b y d r a w i n g a b r i d g i n g in-
ference.
As an e x a m p l e o f h o w this m o d e l
b u i l d s a c o h e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a text
in l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y , c o n s i d e r the fol-
l o w i n g e x c e r p t f r o m o n e o f the t e x t s an-
a l y z e d b y M i l l e r a n d K i n t s c h (1980):
T h e origins o f belly d a n c i n g are said to lie m
fertility rites practiced in E g y p t long before the
time of the p h a r o a h s . F r o m E g y p t belly danc-
ing spread a m o n g the h a r e m s of T u r k i s h sul-
tans and their nobles. Since a s u l t a n ' s h a r e m
m i g h t h o u s e 500 wives and c o n c u b i n e s , only
the best d a n c e r s could attract his attention.
T h e s i m u l a t i o n t a k e s as i n p u t the p r o p -
ositional r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of this text s h o w n
in T a b l e 1. It b e g i n s b y s e g m e n t i n g the
p r o p o s i t i o n s into t h r e e c h u n k s c o r r e -
s p o n d i n g to the t h r e e s e n t e n c e s o f the
text. It t h e n p r o c e s s e s t h e s e in t h r e e sep-
arate cycles. During each cycle a coher-
e n c e g r a p h is c o n s t r u c t e d as s h o w n in
 566 C H A R L E S R. F L E T C H E R

TABLE 1
T H E P R O P O S I T I O N A L R E P R E S E N T A T I O N OF THE S A M P L E " ' B E L L Y D A N C I N G ' ' T E X T

Proposition number Proposition

P1 (ORIGINS BELLY-DANCING P3)
P2 (LIE P1)
P3 (FERTILITY RITES)
P4 (PRACTICED P3 EGYPT)
P5 (BEFORE P4 P7)
P6 (LONG P5)
P7 (TIME-OF PHAROAHS)
*SENTENCE*
P8 (SPREAD BELLY-DANCING EGYPT HAREM)
P9 (POSSESS P10 HAREM)
P10 (CONJUNCTION SULTAN NOBLES)
Pll (TURKISH SULTAN)
*SENTENCE*
P12 (SINCE P13 P19)
P13 (HOUSE HAREM P16)
P14 (SULTAN HAREM)
P15 (CONJUNCTION WIVES CONCUBINES)
P16 (NUMBER-OF P15 500)
P17 (ONLY P18)
P18 (BEST DANCERS)
P19 (COULD P17 P20)
P20 (ATTRACT ATTENTION DANCERS SULTAN)

F i g u r e 1. E a c h p r o p o s i t i o n in such a reasonable strategy must be based on a

g r a p h is c o n n e c t e d to the m o s t s u p e r o r - consideration of both recency and im-
d i n a t e p r o p o s i t i o n w i t h w h i c h it s h a r e s portance. By defining importance in
an a r g u m e n t . I f a g i v e n p r o p o s i t i o n shares terms of the underlying text base they
an a r g u m e n t w i t h t w o or m o r e p r o p o s i - have been able to define a purely objec-
t i o n s at the s a m e l e v e l in this h i e r a r c h y , tive strategy (the "leading edge" strat-
it is c o n n e c t e d o n l y to the m o s t r e c e n t egy) which they argue should approxi-
o n e (the o n e w i t h the h i g h e s t n u m b e r ) .
D u r i n g the first p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e , o n e o f
the p r o p o s i t i o n s m u s t b e d e s i g n a t e d as Cycle I: Buffer: 0 Input: P1-7
the s u p e r o r d i n a t e . D u r i n g s u c c e e d i n g
c y c l e s n e w p r o p o s i t i o n s are m e r e l y a d d e d
o n t o t h o s e a l r e a d y in the s h o r t - t e r m -

b u f f e r . A f t e r e a c h c y c l e this g r a p h
Cycle2: Buffer: PI,3,4 Input:P8-11
s t r u c t u r e is s t o r e d in l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y
u s i n g the p r o p o s i t i o n s h e l d o v e r f r o m
p r e v i o u s c y c l e s as p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t w i t h I~i--9 --10--11
the i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e a d y t h e r e . T h i s al-
l o w s a c o h e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the en- Cycle3: Buffer: PI,8 Input:PI2-20
tire t e x t , the t e x t b a s e , to be b u i l t up in I--8 ~13~12--19~17
~ ~-16__15 ~'-20----18
a cyclical fashion.
F i g u r e 1 a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s the p r o c e d u r e
FIG. 1. The cyclical construction of coherence
u s e d to s e l e c t p r o p o s i t i o n s for i n c l u s i o n graphs for the propositions (P) shown in Table 1.
in the s h o r t - t e r m b u f f e r . K i n t s c h and Propositions selected by the leading edge strategy
v a n D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) h a v e a r g u e d that a n y are underlined.
 SHORT-TERM MEMORY AND TEXT
m a t e the p e r f o r m a n c e o f m o s t s u b j e c t s
u n d e r m o s t c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s s t r a t e g y has
b e e n a d o p t e d b y M i l l e r and K i n t s c h
( 1 9 8 0 ) a n d w o r k s as f o l l o w s . F i r s t the
s u p e r o r d i n a t e p r o p o s i t i o n is s e l e c t e d .
N e x t , the m o s t r e c e n t p r o p o s i t i o n is se-
l e c t e d f r o m e a c h s u c c e e d i n g l e v e l o f the
coherence graph. If more propositions
are r e q u i r e d , the m o s t s u p e r o r d i n a t e
p r o p o s i t i o n s r e m a i n i n g are s e l e c t e d in
order of recency. Any time a selected
proposition contains another proposi-
tion as an a r g u m e n t , that p r o p o s i t i o n
will b e s e l e c t e d n e x t r e g a r d l e s s o f its
p o s i t i o n in the c o h e r e n c e g r a p h . T h i s
p r o c e s s h a l t s as s o o n as s p r o p o s i t i o n s
h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d . T h e v a l u e o f s is a
p a r a m e t e r o f the m o d e l w h i c h v a r i e s
f r o m o n e t e x t to a n o t h e r . U n d e r c e r t a i n
c o n d i t i o n s , the size o f the b u f f e r is ex-
p a n d e d to s + I to r e f l e c t g r e a t e r re-
s o u r c e a v a i l a b i l i t y or to deal w i t h
embedded propositions.
T h i s d e m o n s t r a t e s h o w the u s e o f a
short-term memory buffer could facili-
tate the p r o c e s s o f t e x t c o m p r e h e n s i o n .
Y e t , w h a t e v i d e n c e is t h e r e t h a t p e o p l e
a c t u a l l y u t i l i z e s u c h a b u f f e r ? At the
p r e s e n t t i m e the o n l y e v i d e n c e s e e m s to
be indirect. Daneman and Carpenter
( 1 9 8 0 ) h a d s u b j e c t s r e a d a series o f un-
r e l a t e d s e n t e n c e s a n d t h e n try to r e c a l l
the l a s t w o r d o f e a c h s e n t e n c e . T h e
r e a d i n g s p a n , the n u m b e r o f final w o r d s
recalled, varied from two for poor read-
ers to five f o r g o o d r e a d e r s . T h i s r e s u l t
not o n l y s h o w s t h a t r e a d e r s c a n m a i n t a i n
o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y
w h i l e t h e y r e a d , b u t that t h e i r a b i l i t y to
do so is an i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f
r e a d i n g skill. T h i s is e x a c t l y w h a t o n e
w o u l d e x p e c t if a s h o r t - t e r m b u f f e r w e r e
u s e d to m a i n t a i n c o h e r e n c e b e t w e e n
p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e s . A n o t h e r line o f e v i -
dence s u g g e s t i n g the use o f such a b u f f e r
c o m e s f r o m the v a r i o u s e x p e r i m e n t a l tests
o f the K i n t s c h a n d v a n D i j k (1978)
model. This model explicitly assumes
the e x i s t e n c e a n d use o f a s h o r t - t e r m
567
b u f f e r a n d has b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y fit to
r e c a l l d a t a in a n u m b e r o f e x p e r i m e n t s
( K i n t s c h & v a n D i j k , 1978; S p i l i c h et.
a l . , 1979; M i l l e r & K i n t s c h , 1980). It
has a l s o p r o v e d u s e f u l in p r e d i c t i n g the
readability of texts (Kintsch & Vipond,
1979; V i p o n d , 1980; M i l l e r & K i n t s c h ,
1980). T h e s u c c e s s o f this m o d e l p r o -
v i d e s a d e g r e e o f s u p p o r t f o r its u n d e r -
l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s , in p a r t i c u l a r its as-
s u m p t i o n s a b o u t the r o l e o f s h o r t - t e r m
m e m o r y in c o m p r e h e n s i o n .
W h i l e the a b o v e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t the
use o f a s h o r t - t e r m b u f f e r in m a i n t a i n i n g
the c o h e r e n c e o f a t e x t b e t w e e n p r o c e s s -
ing c y c l e s t h e y do not c o m p e l it. A di-
r e c t d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f the e x i s t e n c e and
u s e o f s u c h a b u f f e r i n v o l v e s t w o steps.
F i r s t o f all w e m u s t be able to p r e d i c t
the c o n t e n t s o f the b u f f e r at s o m e p o i n t
during reading. Secondly, these predic-
tions must be verified experimentally.
The experiments reported below repre-
sent an a t t e m p t to do j u s t this. T h e Miller
and Kintsch (1980) simulation provided
the p r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s .
As a r e s u l t t h e y c a n be v i e w e d as t e s t i n g
a n u m b e r o f t h i n g s . At the m o s t g e n e r a l
l e v e l t h e y test the n o t i o n that a short-
t e r m m e m o r y b u f f e r is u s e d to m a i n t a i n
the c o h e r e n c e o f a t e x t d u r i n g r e a d i n g .
T h e y are a l s o a test o f the l e a d i n g e d g e
s t r a t e g y as an a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the se-
lection strategies employed by human
s u b j e c t s . F i n a l l y , t h e y p r o v i d e y e t an-
o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a l test o f K i n t s c h a n d
v a n D i j k ' s ( 1 9 7 8 ) m o d e l as i m p l e -
m e n t e d b y M i l l e r a n d K i n t s c h (1980).
T h e e x p e r i m e n t s e m p l o y b o t h r e c a l l and
r e c o g n i t i o n m e a s u r e s in an a t t e m p t to
d e m o n s t r a t e that i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h this
m o d e l s t a t e s s h o u l d be r e s i d e n t in short-
t e r m m e m o r y is m o r e r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e
to r e a d e r s t h a n o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h
e n t e r s d u r i n g the s a m e p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e .
EXPERIMENT 1
Experiment 1 utilized a cued recall
t a s k to e x a m i n e the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f dif-
 568 C H A R L E S R. F L E T C H E R
ferent types of proposition identified by
the K i n t s c h a n d v a n D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) m o d e l .
The most critical comparison involves
t w o t y p e s o f p r o p o s i t i o n f r o m the n e x t -
to-last processing cycle; those selected
b y the l e a d i n g e d g e s t r a t e g y f o r inclu-
sion in the s h o r t - t e r m b u f f e r and t h o s e
not so s e l e c t e d . I f the b u f f e r m o d e l has
a n y v a l i d i t y , t h o s e p r o p o s i t i o n s h e l d in
the b u f f e r s h o u l d still be a v a i l a b l e in
s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y at the c o n c l u s i o n o f
the final c y c l e . As a r e s u l t , r e c a l l c u e s
d r a w n f r o m t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s s h o u l d be
more effective than those from proposi-
t i o n s n o t h e l d in the b u f f e r , e v e n t h o u g h
t h e y are f r o m the s a m e p a r t o f the text.
Recall cues from two other types of
p r o p o s i t i o n w e r e e x a m i n e d in this e x -
periment. Any buffer model, including
the K i n t s c h a n d v a n D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) m o d e l ,
w o u l d h a v e to p r e d i c t that n o t - h e l d
p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the n e x t - t o - l a s t p r o -
c e s s i n g c y c l e will be a v a i l a b l e at a b a s e -
line l e v e l e q u i v a l e n t to n o t - h e l d p r o p o -
s i t i o n s f r o m e a r l i e r in the text. T h e s e
p r o p o s i t i o n s are no l o n g e r r e s i d e n t in
short-term memory and have received
no a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n g ( e x t r a c y c l e s )
t h a t w o u l d i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d o f
their being recalled from long-term
m e m o r y . . T o test this p r e d i c t i o n , c u e s
from not-held propositions from earlier
in the t e x t w e r e i n c l u d e d in the e x p e r i -
ment. Finally, cues from unselected
p r o p o s i t i o n s in the final p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e
w e r e e x a m i n e d to p r o v i d e an e s t i m a t e o f
the u p p e r b o u n d o n p e r f o r m a n c e in the
t a s k . L i k e h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the
next-to-last cycle, these propositions
s h o u l d still b e a v a i l a b l e in s h o r t - t e r m
m e m o r y . B u t b e c a u s e o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y
o f s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e f o r the final c y c l e ,
c u e s f r o m that c y c l e s h o u l d l e a d to the
highest level of performance.
T o a c c e s s the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e s e
v a r i o u s t y p e s o f c u e s , subjects w e r e a s k e d
to r e c a l l the c o n t e n t w o r d t h a t f o l l o w e d
the c u e in the text. T h i s t e c h n i q u e is
a d a p t e d f r o m W a u g h and N o r m a n (1965)
a n d h a s b e e n s h o w n b y P e r f e t t i and his
c o l l e a g u e s ( P e r f e t t i & G o l d m a n , 1976;
P e r f e t t i & L e s g o l d , 1977; G o l d m a n ,
H o g a b o a m , B e l l , & P e r f e t t i , 1980) to be
s e n s i t i v e b o t h to s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of
t e x t s a n d to s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y d i f f e r -
e n c e s b e t w e e n g o o d and p o o r r e a d e r s .
T h u s , if s o m e p r o p o s i t i o n s are h e l d in a
s h o r t - t e r m b u f f e r a n d o t h e r s are not, this
m e t h o d s h o u l d b e s e n s i t i v e to the d i f f e r -
ence.
Method
Subjects. S u b j e c t s f o r this e x p e r i m e n t
w e r e 52 U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o p s y -
chology students who received course
credit for their participation.
Materials. T h e p r i m a r y t e x t s u s e d f o r
this e x p e r i m e n t w e r e 20 s h o r t p a r a -
g r a p h s ( a b o u t 80 w o r d s e a c h ) a d a p t e d
f r o m a r t i c l e s a p p e a r i n g in the Reader's
Digest. T h e s a m e t e x t s w e r e u s e d b y
Miller and Kintsch (1980). Three addi-
t i o n a l t e x t s o f the s a m e l e n g t h a n d f r o m
the s a m e s o u r c e w e r e u s e d f o r w a r m - u p .
Each text was segmented for presenta-
tion. T h e s e g m e n t s c o r r e s p o n d e d to the
input cycles determined by Miller and
Kintsch (1980). Four cues were selected
f r o m e a c h text: o n e w a s d r a w n f r o m a
n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n in the last c y c l e
p r i o r to t e s t i n g , o n e w a s f r o m a h e l d
p r o p o s i t i o n in the n e x t - t o - l a s t p r o c e s s -
ing c y c l e , o n e w a s f r o m a n o t - h e l d p r o p -
o s i t i o n in the n e x t - t o - l a s t c y c l e , and the
last was f r o m a not-held p r o p o s i t i o n prior
to the n e x t - t o - l a s t p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e . T h e
c u e s w e r e p r e s e n t e d s o m e t i m e a f t e r the
third p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e so that all t h r e e
proposition types would be available.
F o r o n e t e x t the c u e c o u l d o n l y f o l l o w
the s e c o n d c y c l e a n d so no p r i o r , not-
h e l d c u e w a s a v a i l a b l e . In the a n a l y s i s
b y i t e m s p r e s e n t e d b e l o w , the m e a n f o r
this c o n d i t i o n w a s a s s i g n e d to this text.
F o r the o t h e r t e x t s the c h o i c e o f w h i c h
c y c l e the c u e w o u l d f o l l o w w a s d e t e r -
m i n e d r a n d o m l y f r o m the p o s s i b l e
choices. Cues were then randomly cho-
 SHORT-TERM MEMORY AND TEXT
sen f r o m the a v a i l a b l e p o o l w i t h i n e a c h
category.
Procedure. S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in-
d i v i d u a l l y in s e s s i o n s l a s t i n g a b o u t 45
m i n u t e s . All i n s t r u c t i o n s , t e x t s , and re-
call c u e s w e r e p r e s e n t e d on a F o u r - P h a s e
s y s t e m C R T c o n t r o l l e d b y the S i g m a 3
c o m p u t e r o f the C o m p u t e r L a b o r a t o r y
f o r I n s t r u c t i o n in P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e -
s e a r c h at the U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o .
T e x t s w e r e r e a d o n e c h u n k at a t i m e ,
w h e r e e a c h c h u n k c o r r e s p o n d e d to a
processing cycle. Subjects paced them-
s e l v e s , u s i n g a b u t t o n p r e s s to r e q u e s t
the n e x t s c r e e n o f text. W h e n a r e c a l l
c u e a p p e a r e d i n s t e a d , t h e y t r i e d to re-
m e m b e r and write d o w n the content w o r d
w h i c h f o l l o w e d it in the t e x t . T h e y t h e n
c o n t i n u e d r e a d i n g the t e x t to its end.
T h i s w a s d o n e to p r e s e r v e the c o h e r e n c e
o f the t e x t s a n d m a k e the t a s k as m u c h
like n o r m a l r e a d i n g as p o s s i b l e . T h e
t e x t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d in a d i f f e r e n t ran-
d o m o r d e r to e a c h s u b j e c t . E a c h s u b j e c t
r e c e i v e d five c u e s f r o m e a c h o f the f o u r
categories and each cue was presented
to 13 s u b j e c t s .
Results and Discussion
B e c a u s e o u r i n t e r e s t is in m e m o r y for
meaning rather than surface structure,
s y n o n y m s o f the t a r g e t w o r d s w e r e ac-
c e p t e d as c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s . T w o j u d g e s
s c o r e d the d a t a f r o m e a c h s u b j e c t and a
r e s p o n s e w a s c o u n t e d as c o r r e c t o n l y if
b o t h c l a s s i f i e d it as c o r r e c t . T h e j u d g e s
a g r e e d on 9 6 % o f t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
The probability of a correct response
f o l l o w i n g e a c h c u e t y p e is s h o w n in T a -
ble 2. T h r e e o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s w e r e
p e r f o r m e d on t h e s e d a t a . T h e first c o n -
firms o u r p r e d i c t i o n o f no d i f f e r e n c e be-
t w e e n n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the
n e x t - t o - l a s t p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e and not-
held propositions from prior processing
cycles, F < 1 both by subjects and by
items. The second comparison reveals
t h a t h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the n e x t - t o -
last p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e are r e c a l l e d m o r e
569
TABLE 2
PROBABILITY OF RECALL FOR FOUR TYPES OF
PROPOSITION IDENTIFIED BY THE MODEL
(EXPERIMENT 1)
Proposition type Pr(Recall)
Prior cycle
not held .30
Next-to-last cycle
not held .27
Next-to-last cycle
held .45
Last cycle
not held 61
accurately than not-held propositions
f r o m the s a m e c y c l e a n d n o t - h e l d p r o p -
o s i t i o n s f r o m e a r l i e r in the t e x t , F(1,153)
= 19.03, p < .001, MSe = .049 by subjects
and F(1,57) = 4.46, p < .05, MSe = .076
by items. Thus, propositions that enter
during the n e x t - t o - l a s t p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e ,
but that the leading edge strategy selects
f o r i n c l u s i o n in a s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y
buffer, are recalled better than those that
e n t e r d u r i n g the s a m e c y c l e b u t are n o t
selected. These latter propositions, in turn,
are recalled with the same probability as
unselected propositions f r o m earlier in the
text, just as any buffer model would predict
they should be.
T h e third c o m p a r i s o n tests the p r e d i c -
tion that the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f the last
p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e will still be a v a i l a b l e
in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y at the t i m e o f test-
ing. It s h o w s that n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s
f r o m the last c y c l e are r e c a l l e d m o r e ac-
c u r a t e l y t h a n the p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m ear-
l i e r in t h e t e x t , F ( 1 , 1 5 3 ) = 56.88,
p < .001, MSe = .049 b y s u b j e c t s a n d
F ( 1 , 5 7 ) = 13.79, p < .001, MSe = .076
b y i t e m s . A n o t h e r f e a t u r e o f the d a t a ,
the l i k e l i h o o d o f a v e r b a t i m r e s p o n s e ,
s u p p o r t s o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this dif-
f e r e n c e . F o l l o w i n g a c u e f r o m the last
p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e , o n l y 2 . 5 % o f all the
correct responses were paraphrases of
the t a r g e t . T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r c e n t -
a g e s f o r the o t h e r t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s w e r e
23.9% (next-to-last cycle, held), 28.2%
570 CHARLES
( n e x t - t o - l a s t c y c l e , n o t - h e l d ) , and 13.2%
(prior cycle, not-held). This argues
strongly for a verbatim representation of
the last c y c l e .
EXPERIMENT 2
Thus far we have two sources of evi-
d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g the i d e a that a short-
t e r m m e m o r y b u f f e r is u s e d to m a i n t a i n
the c o h e r e n c e o f a t e x t b e t w e e n p r o c e s s -
ing c y c l e s . F i r s t is the finding in E x p e r -
i m e n t 1 that c u e s f r o m u n s e l e c t e d p r o p -
o s i t i o n s in the n e x t - t o - l a s t c y c l e are no
more effective than those from unse-
l e c t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m e a r l i e r in the
text. M o r e i m p o r t a n t , h o w e v e r , is the
finding that within the n e x t - t o - l a s t c y c l e ,
c u e s f r o m p r o p o s i t i o n s s e l e c t e d b y the
l e a d i n g e d g e s t r a t e g y p r o d u c e b e t t e r re-
call t h a n c u e s f r o m u n s e l e c t e d p r o p o s i -
t i o n s . W e w o u l d like to c o n c l u d e that
this p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s reflects the a v a i l -
a b i l i t y o f the d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f p r o p o s i -
tion in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y . O n e c o m p l i -
c a t i o n w i t h this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is that the
t a s k i n v o l v e s r e t e n t i o n o f w o r d o r d e r in-
f o r m a t i o n , a n d w o r d o r d e r is not p a r t o f
a propositional representation. To avoid
this p r o b l e m E x p e r i m e n t 2 u t i l i z e d a
t a s k w h i c h is not d e p e n d e n t on the re-
t e n t i o n o f w o r d o r d e r , and w h i c h h a s the
a d d i t i o n a l a d v a n t a g e o f a l l o w i n g us to
examine subjects' response latencies.
R e s e a r c h u s i n g the S t e r n b e r g ( 1 9 6 6 )
p a r a d i g m h a s led to e s t i m a t e s that the
t i m e r e q u i r e d to r e t r i e v e an i t e m f r o m
s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y is a b o u t 4 0 0 + 30s
m i l l i s e c o n d s , w h e r e s is the n u m b e r o f
i t e m s r e s i d e n t in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y .
R e t r i e v a l f r o m l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y is
much slower. Simon (1976) estimates
that it t a k e s a b o u t 2 s e c o n d s , plus s e v -
eral h u n d r e d m i l l i s e c o n d s f o r e a c h i t e m
s e a r c h e d . T h i s s u g g e s t s that a p r o p o s i -
tion in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y s h o u l d not
only be retrieved more reliably than one
not t h e r e , it s h o u l d a l s o be r e t r i e v e d
more quickly. This suggestion has been
R. FLETCHER
confirmed by Ratcliff and McKoon
(1978). These authors presented sub-
j e c t s w i t h s t u d y s e n t e n c e s then t e s t e d
them for recognition of single words
f r o m t h o s e s e n t e n c e s . T h e y f o u n d that
r e s p o n s e t i m e to a w o r d p r e c e d e d b y an-
o t h e r test w o r d f r o m the s a m e s t u d y sen-
t e n c e w a s o v e r 100 m i l l i s e c o n d s f a s t e r
t h a n if the p r e c e d i n g w o r d w a s f r o m a
different study sentence. The magnitude
o f this d i f f e r e n c e w a s e v e n g r e a t e r w h e n
the p r e c e d i n g w o r d w a s f r o m the s a m e
p r o p o s i t i o n as the t a r g e t w o r d . T h u s , as
the l i k e l i h o o d o f r e i n s t a t i n g the t a r g e t
p r o p o s i t i o n into s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y in-
c r e a s e s , the r e s p o n s e t i m e d e c r e a s e s .
T h e l o g i c o f the c u r r e n t e x p e r i m e n t is
s o m e w h a t like R a t c l i f f a n d M c K o o n ' s
l o g i c ( 1 9 7 8 ) . S u b j e c t s r e a d a t e x t and
then were presented with a probe word
for verification. Probes requiring a pos-
itive response were drawn from one of
four t y p e s o f p r o p o s i t i o n , the s a m e t y p e s
e x a m i n e d in E x p e r i m e n t 1. T h e p r e d i c -
t i o n s are a l s o m u c h the s a m e as in E x -
p e r i m e n t 1. F i r s t o f all, w e c a n e x p e c t
p r o b e s f r o m n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s in the
last c y c l e to b e v e r i f i e d m o s t q u i c k l y
and a c c u r a t e l y b e c a u s e o f the a v a i l a b i l -
ity o f s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e . S e c o n d l y , we
expect probes from not-held proposi-
t i o n s in the n e x t - t o - l a s t c y c l e to be v e r -
ified w i t h the s a m e s p e e d and the s a m e
a c c u r a c y as n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m
e a r l i e r in the text. L a s t l y , and m o s t i m -
portantly, we can expect probes from
held p r o p o s i t i o n s in the n e x t - t o - l a s t c y c l e
to b e v e r i f i e d n o t o n l y m o r e a c c u r a t e l y ,
but a l s o m o r e q u i c k l y t h a n not h e l d
p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the s a m e c y c l e or e a r -
lier.
Method
Subjects. S u b j e c t s f o r this e x p e r i m e n t
w e r e 72 U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o u n d e r -
graduates who received course credit for
their participation.
Materials. T h e t e x t s u s e d in the first
e x p e r i m e n t w e r e a g a i n u s e d in this ex-
 SHORT-TERM
periment. The recall cues from Experi-
m e n t 1 w e r e u s e d as the p o s i t i v e p r o b e s
in this e x p e r i m e n t . In o r d e r to p r o v i d e
n e g a t i v e p r o b e s , 10 a d d i t i o n a l t e x t s o f
a b o u t 80 w o r d s e a c h w e r e a d a p t e d f r o m
R e a d e r ' s D i g e s t a r t i c l e s and s e g m e n t e d
f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n . P o s i t i v e p r o b e s fol-
l o w e d the s a m e t e x t s e g m e n t as did re-
call c u e s in E x p e r i m e n t 1. N e g a t i v e
p r o b e s w e r e p l a c e d as f o l l o w s . T h e first
a n d last s e g m e n t s w e r e e l i m i n a t e d f r o m
c o n s i d e r a t i o n , then the p r o b e was p l a c e d
at r a n d o m f o l l o w i n g o n e o f the r e m a i n -
ing s e g m e n t s . T h e n e g a t i v e p r o b e w a s
t h e n c h o s e n at r a n d o m f r o m the c o n t e n t
w o r d s in the t e x t w h i c h o n l y o c c u r r e d
f o l l o w i n g the p r o b e p o s i t i o n . T h i s p r o -
c e d u r e e n s u r e s t h a t the r e l a t e d n e s s o f
e a c h p r o b e to its t e x t will be a b o u t the
same for positive and negative probes.
P r o c e d u r e . S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p t e d indi-
v i d u a l l y in s e s s i o n s l a s t i n g a b o u t 40
m i n u t e s . U p o n e n t e r i n g the l a b o r a t o r y
t h e y r e c e i v e d w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s and
then were seated facing a blank wall
o n t o w h i c h all t e x t s e g m e n t s a n d p r o b e
words were projected by a Kodak Car-
o u s e l p r o j e c t o r . T h e e x p e r i m e n t e r initi-
a t e d the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e a c h slide w i t h
a button p r e s s that s i m u l t a n e o u s l y started
a m i l l i s e c o n d t i m e r . W h e n the s u b j e c t
finished r e a d i n g a text s e g m e n t he p r e s s e d
a b u t t o n w i t h his left i n d e x finger to re-
q u e s t the n e x t slide. W h e n a p r o b e ap-
p e a r e d he w a s i n s t r u c t e d to d e c i d e as
q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e if it h a d o c c u r r e d in
the c u r r e n t t e x t , t h e n to p r e s s o n e b u t t o n
w i t h his r i g h t h a n d if it h a d and a n o t h e r
b u t t o n w i t h his left h a n d if it h a d not.
T h e e x p e r i m e n t e r t h e n r e c o r d e d the re-
action time and response type before
p r e s e n t i n g the n e x t slide. A f t e r e a c h
p r o b e the s u b j e c t c o n t i n u e d r e a d i n g the
text to its end. A blank slide was placed
b e t w e e n t e x t s to s i g n a l s u b j e c t s that a
new text was beginning. Three practice
t e x t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f
the e x p e r i m e n t to e l i m i n a t e w a r m - u p ef-
f e c t s a n d a n y c o n f u s i o n on the p a r t o f
MEMORY AND TEXT 571
the s u b j e c t . T h e s e w e r e f o l l o w e d b y the
30 test t e x t s (20 p o s i t i v e and 10 n e g a -
tive). T h e test t e x t s w e r e r a n d o m l y di-
v i d e d into t h r e e g r o u p s a n d the o r d e r o f
presentation of these groups was coun-
t e r b a l a n c e d across subjects. Within each
g r o u p , t e x t s w e r e a l w a y s p r e s e n t e d in
the s a m e o r d e r . E a c h s u b j e c t r e c e i v e d 5
p o s i t i v e p r o b e s o f e a c h t y p e , and e a c h
p o s i t i v e p r o b e w a s p r e s e n t e d to 18 sub-
j e c t s . All s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d the s a m e 10
negative probes.
Results and Discussion
T h e m e a n r e a c t i o n t i m e and p r o b a b i l -
ity o f a c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e f o r e a c h p r o b e
t y p e are s h o w n in T a b l e 3. T h e r e is a
significant relation between the two
r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e s , r(79) = - . 5 0 , p <
.001, in an a n a l y s i s b y i t e m s , i n d i c a t i n g
t h a t f a s t r e s p o n s e s t e n d e d to b e m o r e
a c c u r a t e t h a n slow r e s p o n s e s . T h i s indi-
c a t e s g o o d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n the t w o
r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e s a n d r u l e s o u t the
possibility of a trade-off between speed
a n d a c c u r a c y . B e c a u s e the p r o b e w o r d s
in this e x p e r i m e n t w e r e the s a m e as the
c u e s g i v e n in E x p e r i m e n t 1, we can also
c h e c k the c o n s i s t e n c y o f o u r results
across experiments. The probability of
a c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e in E x p e r i m e n t 1 is
s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to b o t h r e s p o n s e
m e a s u r e s in the current e x p e r i m e n t , r(79)
= - . 2 2 , p < .05 and r(79) = .34, p < .001
TABLE 3
ACCURACY AND LATENCY OF IDENTIFYING PROBE
WORDS FROM FOUR TYPES OF PROPOSITION
IDENTIFIED BY THE MODEL (EXPERIMENT 2)
Probe type P r ( C o r r e c t ) R e a c t i o n (msec) t i m e
Prior c y c l e
not he l d .68 1478
Next-to-last cycle
not he l d .67 1462
Next-to-last cycle
hel d .79 1385
Last c y c l e
not h e l d 91 1234
 572 CHARLES R. FLETCHER
f o r the r e a c t i o n t i m e a n d a c c u r a c y m e a -
s u r e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e s e findings s u g -
g e s t that o u r r e s u l t s are r e a s o n a b l y ro-
bust with r e s p e c t to b o t h the e x p e r i m e n t a l
p r o c e d u r e a n d the r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e .
T h e a n a l y s i s o f this e x p e r i m e n t w a s
i d e n t i c a l to the a n a l y s i s o f E x p e r i m e n t
1. B o t h the p r o b a b i l i t y o f a c o r r e c t re-
s p o n s e a n d the r e a c t i o n t i m e s w e r e a n a -
lyzed by means of three orthogonal
c o m p a r i s o n s . T h e first c o m p a r i s o n sup-
p o r t s o u r p r e d i c t i o n that p r o b e w o r d s
f r o m n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s in the last
p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e will b e v e r i f i e d m o r e
a c c u r a t e l y , F ( 1 , 2 1 3 ) = 6 5 . 5 5 , p < .001,
MSe = .031 b y s u b j e c t s a n d F ( 1 , 5 7 ) =
1 7 . 7 1 , p < . 0 0 1 , MS = .029 b y i t e m s ,
and more rapidly F(1,213) = 43.62,
p < .001, MS~ = .054 b y s u b j e c t s a n d
F ( 1 , 5 7 ) = 17.79, p < .001, MS~ = .047
b y i t e m s , t h a n the o t h e r t h r e e t y p e s o f
p r o p o s i t i o n . T h i s r e p l i c a t e s o u r finding
f r o m E x p e r i m e n t i. O n c e a g a i n w e c a n
a t t r i b u t e this d i f f e r e n c e to the a v a i l a b i l -
ity o f a s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
o f the final p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e in short-
term memory.
T h e s e c o n d c o n t r a s t v e r i f i e d that not-
h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the n e x t - t o - l a s t
p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e are v e r i f i e d no m o r e
a c c u r a t e l y a n d no m o r e q u i c k l y than
n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m e a r l i e r in the
t e x t (all F ' s < 1 ) . T h i s is an i m p o r t a n t
r e s u l t f o r the b u f f e r m o d e l w h i c h p r e -
dicts t h a t n e i t h e r t y p e o f p r o p o s i t i o n
will b e f o u n d in s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y , n o r
wilt h a v e r e c e i v e d a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n g
to i n c r e a s e its l i k e l i h o o d o f b e i n g re-
called from long-term memory.
T h e final c o n t r a s t is the c r i t i c a l c o m -
parison between held propositions from
the n e x t - t o - l a s t p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e and not-
h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the s a m e or ear-
lier c y c l e s . In the first e x p e r i m e n t we
f o u n d t h a t the f o r m e r p r o d u c e d b e t t e r
r e c a l l t h a n the latter. T h i s e x p e r i m e n t
confirms these findings, F(1,213) =
19.29, p < .001, MSe = .031 by subjects
a n d F ( 1 , 5 7 ) = 5.16, p < .05, MS~ =
.029 b y i t e m s . T a b l e 3 s u g g e s t s that the
h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s are a l s o v e r i f i e d m o r e
quickly. The analysis by subjects con-
firms this p r e d i c t i o n , F ( 1 , 2 1 3 ) = 6 . 4 3 ,
p < .05, MS~ = .054. T h e a n a l y s i s b y
items, however, was nonsignificant,
F ( 1 , 5 7 ) = 1.37, p > .05, MS~ = .047,
p r o b a b l y d u e to a l a c k o f p o w e r . T h u s ,
t h e s e d a t a a r g u e in f a v o r o f the b u f f e r
m o d e l w h i c h p r e d i c t s that h e l d p r o p o s i -
t i o n s are m o r e l i k e l y to be f o u n d in
short-term memory than not-held prop-
ositions.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The limited capacity of short-term
m e m o r y c o n s t r a i n s all a s p e c t s o f h u m a n
i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . W i t h i n the c o n -
t e x t o f t e x t c o m p r e h e n s i o n , this c o n -
straint t a k e s the f o r m o f a l i m i t on the
a m o u n t o f t e x t t h a t c a n be p r o c e s s e d at
a n y o n e t i m e , thus f o r c i n g a c y c l i c a l
p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g y ( J a r v e l l a , 1971).
S u c h a s t r a t e g y c r e a t e s its o w n p r o b l e m ,
however. Namely, how does one form
the p r o p e r c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n i d e a s
from different processing cycles? One
p o s s i b i l i t y is t h a t the l o n g - t e r m r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n o f the t e x t is s e a r c h e d a f t e r
each cycle. A more efficient processing
s t r a t e g y w o u l d be to h o l d s o m e s u b s e t
o f the p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m e a c h c y c l e in a
short-term memory buffer for reprocess-
ing a l o n g with the n e w p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m
the n e x t c y c l e . I f t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s are
w e l l c h o s e n , t h e y will be c o h e r e n t w i t h
the n e w i n p u t and g u i d e its i n t e g r a t i o n
into the l o n g - t e r m r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the
t e x t as a w h o l e .
The experiments reported here were
d e s i g n e d to e x p l o r e the p o s s i b i l i t y that
h u m a n s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y utilize s u c h a
b u f f e r w h e n t h e y r e a d . But this r e q u i r e d
an a p r i o r i s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f w h a t the c o n -
t e n t s o f the b u f f e r should be. T h i s s p e c -
i f i c a t i o n w a s p r o v i d e d b y M i l l e r and
Kintsch's (1980) simulation of Kintsch
a n d v a n D i j k ' s ( 1 9 7 8 ) m o d e l o f text
c o m p r e h e n s i o n . T h i s m o d e l a s s u m e s the
 SHORT-TERM MEMORY
utilization of such a buffer and specifies
a set o f s e l e c t i o n r u l e s ( t h e l e a d i n g e d g e
s t r a t e g y ) f o r filling it. U s i n g the p r e d i c -
t i o n s o f this m o d e l , we h a v e c o l l e c t e d
data which support two strong predic-
t i o n s o f b u f f e r m o d e l s in g e n e r a l and the
K i n t s c h a n d v a n D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) m o d e l in
p a r t i c u l a r . F i r s t o f all, we h a v e s h o w n
that p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h s h o u l d be in the
b u f f e r are r e c a l l e d q u i c k e r a n d m o r e ac-
curately than other propositions which
w e r e r e a d d u r i n g the s a m e p r o c e s s i n g
c y c l e . S e c o n d l y , w e f o u n d that the latter
are r e c a l l e d n o m o r e a c c u r a t e l y and no
more quickly than unselected proposi~
t i o n s f r o m e a r l i e r in the text. A n y alter-
native explanation of these data would
h a v e to m a k e the s e l e c t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s
s o m e h o w m o r e a v a i l a b l e in l o n g - t e r m
m e m o r y . B u t the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a
s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r y b u f f e r a n d an acti-
vated subset of long-term memory rep-
resents a very fuzzy distinction, and can
be s e e n as an a r g u m e n t a b o u t the n a t u r e
of short-term m e m o r y rather than about its
allocation during text c o m p r e h e n s i o n . The
i m p o r t a n t p o i n t f o r o u r p u r p o s e s is that
having some propositions more avail-
a b l e t h a n o t h e r s s e e m s to f a c i l i t a t e the
c o m p r e h e n s i o n p r o c e s s , a n d the K i n t s c h
a n d v a n D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) m o d e l b o t h de-
s c r i b e s in d e t a i l w h y this is so and al-
l o w s us to i d e n t i f y the m o r e a v a i l a b l e
p r o p o s i t i o n s . W h i l e a m o d e l that m a d e
different propositions differentially available
in l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y could, in p r i n c i p a l ,
accomplish the same thing, the details of
such a model remain to be w o r k e d out.
The results of these experiments rep-
r e s e n t a c l e a r set o f c o n s t r a i n t s on f u t u r e
a t t e m p t s to m o d e l the c o m p r e h e n s i o n
p r o c e s s . In c o n f o r m i n g to the d a t a p r e -
s e n t e d h e r e , s u c h m o d e l s will h a v e a
built-in family resemblance to the
K i n t s c h and v a n Dijk (1978) m o d e l w h i c h
predicted them. If one compares held
and n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s , it is c l e a r that
the f o r m e r are m o r e i m p o r t a n t , thus a n y
r e a s o n a b l e m o d e l w o u l d be likely to m a k e
AND TEXT 573
t h e m m o r e a v a i l a b l e e v e n w i t h o u t the
data presented here. The equal avail-
a b i l i t y o f n o t - h e l d p r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m the
next-to-last and earlier cycles, however,
is less i n t u i t i v e . It is difficult to f o r e s e e
h o w a n y m o d e l c o u l d c o n f o r m to b o t h
of these constraints without becoming
f u n c t i o n a l l y e q u i v a l e n t to a b u f f e r model.
A critical component of any buffer
m o d e l is the s t r a t e g y u s e d to s e l e c t
p r o p o s i t i o n s f o r i n c l u s i o n in the b u f f e r .
O u r p r e d i c t i o n s in the e x p e r i m e n t s a b o v e
w e r e b a s e d on the l e a d i n g e d g e s t r a t e g y
of Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) which
w a s o f f e r e d o n l y as an a p p r o x i m a t i o n of
the s t r a t e g i e s e m p l o y e d b y h u m a n sub-
j e c t s . B u t j u s t as a n o - b u f f e r m o d e l fails
to t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f o u r k n o w l e d g e o f
t e x t s t r u c t u r e , the l e a d i n g e d g e s t r a t e g y ,
w h i c h is b a s e d o n s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s
o f the u n d e r l y i n g t e x t b a s e , fails to t a k e
advantage of our more general knowl-
e d g e o f the w o r l d . T h i s f a c t is c l e a r l y
r e f l e c t e d in the d a t a r e p o r t e d a b o v e . In
all c a s e s , s u b j e c t s fall f a r s h o r t o f the
p e r f e c t p e r f o r m a n c e we w o u l d e x p e c t if
w e c o u l d e x a c t l y p r e d i c t the c o n t e n t s o f
t h e i r s h o r t - t e r m m e m o r i e s . B u t as we
a p p r o a c h a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the
s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s , i n c l u d i n g its v a r i a -
tion f r o m o n e s u b j e c t to the n e x t , we can
e x p e c t the d i f f e r e n c e in p e r f o r m a n c e be-
t w e e n s e l e c t e d and u n s e l e c t e d p r o p o s i -
tions to i n c r e a s e , and the latter to ap-
p r o a c h an i d e a l l e v e l . T h e p r e s e n t
e x p e r i m e n t s h a v e s h o w n that c o n t i n u e d
r e s e a r c h a l o n g t h e s e lines w o u l d be
fruitful.
REFERENCES
CAPE,AN, D, C l a u s e b o u n d a r i e s and recognxtion la-
tencles for words in s e n t e n c e s . Perception and
Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 7 3 - 7 6 .
CHANG, F. R. Active m e m o r y p r o c e s s e s in visual
s e n t e n c e c o m p r e h e n s i o n : Clause effects and
p r o n o m i n a l reference. Mernory and Cogmrion,
1980, 8, 5 8 - 6 4 .
DANEMAN, M . , • CARPENTER, P. A. IndivLdual
d i f f e r e n c e s in w o r k i n g m e m o r y and reading.
574 C H A R L E S R. F L E T C H E R
Journal of Verbal Learnmg and Verbal Behav-
ior, 1980, 19, 450-466.
GOLDMAN, S. R., HOGABOAM. T. W., BELL, L. C.,
& PERFETTI, C. A. Short-term retention of dis-
course during reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1980, 5,647-655.
JARVELLA, R. J. Syntactic processing of connected
speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 1971, 10, 409-416.
KINTSCH, W. The Representation of Meaning in
Memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974.
KINTSCH, W., & VAN DIJK, T. A. Toward a model
of text comprehension and production. Psycho-
logical Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.
KINTSCH, W., & VIPOND, D. Reading comprehen-
sion and readability in educational practice and
psychological theory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.),
Perspectives on memory research. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Erlbaum. 1979.
MILLER, G. m. The magical number seven, plus or
minus two: Some limits on our capacity for pro-
cessing information. Psychological Review,
1956, 63, 81-97.
MILLER, J. R., & KINTSCH, W. Readability and re-
call of short prose passages: A theoretical anal-
ysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Hu-
man Learning and Memory, 1980, 6,335-354.
PERFETTI, C. m., & GOLDMAN, S. R. Discourse
memory and reading comprehension skill. Jour-
nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1976, 14, 33-42.
PERFETTI, C. A., t~z LESGOLD, A. M. Discourse
comprehension and sources of individual differ-
ences. In M. Just & P. Carpenter (Eds.), Cog-
nitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.
RATCLWF, R., & M c K o o N , G. Priming in item rec-
ognition: Evidence for the propositional struc-
ture of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17,403-417.
SIMON, H. A. How big is a chunk? Science, 1974,
183,482-488.
SIMON, H. A. The information storage system called
"human m e m o r y " . In M. R. Rosenzweig &
E. L. Bennett (Eds.), Neural Mechanisms of
Learning and Memory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1976.
SPILICH, G. J., VESONDER, G. T., CHEISI, H. L.,
& V o s s , J. F. Text processing of domain-re-
lated information for individuals with high and
low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18,
275-290.
STERNBERG, S. High-speed scanning in human
memory. Science, 1966, 153,652-654.
VIPOND, O. Micro- and macroprocesses in text com-
prehension. Journal of Verbal Learmng and
Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19,276-296,
WAUGH, N. C., • NORNAM, D A. Primary mem-
ory, Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 89-104.
(Received January 14, 1981 )