Noise effects on rate of rehearsal in short term memory

Chapter 1 reviews the literature on the effects of noise within three memory paradigms. This review shows a general trend indicating that noise increases reliance on order information. Chapter 2 thus attempts to establish a relationship between the recall of order information and the use of phonological coding and suggests that noise, in some way, interferes with the efficiency with which phonological codes are used. Chapters 3--6 then describe ten experiments carried out to test this hypothesis. Experiments 1--4 showed that noise improved serial order recall of acoustically similar letters and that noise effects were more likely to be observed in conditions where rehearsal depended on some internally stored representation rather than being guided by visually available items. Experiments 5 and 6 investigated the effects of noise on recognition and a free recall task and generally found no effects. Experiments 7 and 8 showed that overt rehearsal of items in noise was slower. Experiment 9 then showed that slowing of rehearsal had different consequences on memory performance depending on the spoken length of the to-be-remembered items. A model was described to explain the improvement in recall of acoustically similar items presented in noise, as well as the impairment in recall of dissimilar items and of words of long spoken length. Experiment 10 showed that retrieval of phonological codes was impaired by noise while no effects were observed on the retrieval of semantic codes. This was suggested as being responsible for the preference which subjects show for adopting maintenance rehearsal strategies, which may in turn produce the effects observed in noise of improvement in order recall but impairment in semantic processing. The final chapter integrates the above evidence in an attempt to explain the strategic nature of noise effects on memory performance.<p

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (&lt; 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and &gt; 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (&lt; 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (&lt; 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with &gt; 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (&lt; 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system