Recall performance in Structured vs. Non-Structured Sequences.

<p>Mean recall performance (% correct) in each experiment, contrasting a composite score for structured (LR and RL) trials in green vs. random structure (IND) trials in red. Error bars reflect the between-subjects SEM. The benefit of structure was apparent in all experiments (asterisks indicate a significant difference with an alpha level of. 05), and significantly greater in the cognitively demanding symbolic number condition.</p

Spatial recall for Experiment 2: Non-symbolic Number Arrays.

<p>Female and male participants’ performance in Experiment 2: Non-Symbolic Number at each string length (1 panel up to 10 panels), for the left-to-right structured and right-to-left structured spatial flow types. Error bars are the within-subject SEM.</p

Effect of Spatial Flow on Spatial Location Recall for Experiment 1.

<p>Participants’ performance at each position in the 10-panel recall string (T10) for Experiment 1: Space Only, for the left-to-right structured and right-to-left structured spatial flow types. Error bars are the within-subject standard error of the mean (SEM).</p

Impact of spatial flow type on recall.

<p>Participants’ performance differential for the two horizontal spatial flow types (LR—RL). The asterisk reflects a significant difference between the experiments at an alpha level of. 05, and error bars depicted are the SEM of each group.</p

Experimental Schematic and Embedded Numerical Stimuli.

<p>Schematic of stimuli and spatial flow for Experiments 2, 3A, and 3B (left-to-right flow shown). In Experiment 2 the non-symbolic arrays were embedded in spatial locations as they appeared on the screen, and in Experiment 3A and 3B the symbolic numerals were embedded in the center of each location as it appeared.</p