1

DIGIT SPAN EXPERIMENT: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON FORWARD

RECALL USING SIMPLE AND CHUNKED NUMBER SETS

Olaleye Mostura M. 240904015

Ayoola Sunday A. 240904007

Ogungbemi Favour S. 240904061

Elikanah Oreoluwa M. 240904036

Birch Anthonia O. 240904017

Akinyinka Oluwatoyosi B. 240904068

Ikhalea Stephanie O. 240904066

Orji Favour O. 240904085

Written By:

Ategbero Oluwasegun A. 240904057

John Morenikeji J. 240904059

Group 1 batch 1

Department of Psychology

University of Lagos

Psy 137: Practical Psychology

Mr. Oscar V. Oyogho

JUNE 23, 2025.

 2

ABSTRACT

This investigation explains more about the nature of the human memory. The experiment

focuses on evaluating the working memory using various digit span tests. This research is one

of the experimental methods carried out in cognitive psychology to know how much

information a person can recall in a short period of time. This experiment involves

presenting participants with number of random digits that continues to increase in length,

testing the participants ability to be able to accurately recall the numbers in the correct order.

Based on classical theories such as Miller’s (1956) “Magic Number Seven” with Atkinson

and Shiffrin’s (1969) multi store model, this experiment involves one particular type of task:

this involves recalling the sequence of numbers that were presented to them in the order that

it was presented (forward recall). The experiment focuses on only the accurate measure of

working memory due to its higher cognitive demands. In a controlled lad, 31 undergraduate

psychology students participated in this experiment using pen and paper materials. The

stimuli included simple and complex number sets with sequence intelligence than a as they

continued the investigation. Research from related literature including Engle et al (1999),

supports that tasks that require manipulation like the digit span task like the sequencing of

numbers are more predictive of fluid intelligence than a basic recall. Variability in timing,

speech composure and delivery, and the participants memory recall are acknowledged too.

Overall, this investigation explains the importance of accurately measuring the short term

memory and the working memory and how it works.

INTRODUCTION
 3

Digit span is a commonly studied cognitive task used to measure short-term memory capacity

and attentional control. It involves recalling a sequence of numbers in the order it was

presented (forward digit span) or in the reverse order (backward digit span). This task is often

included in cognitive and memory tests, like the Wechsler intelligence scales, because it

reflects the ability to temporary store and manipulate information.

The concept of digit span is rooted in foundational theories of memory. Theories like Miller’s

(1956) ‘The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two’ which states that the average person

can hold about seven (plus or minus two) items in their short-term memory. This idea helped

define the limits of human cognitive capacity and remains relevant in understanding

performance on span tasks.

In the Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) multi-store model of memory, it highlights how

information is processed through these three distinct stages: Sensory memory, Short term

memory (STM) and Long term memory (LTM). According to this model, STM has a limited

duration and capacity. It makes tasks like digit span useful in measuring the ability to retain

and manipulate information before it either fades or is encoded into long-term storage.

Digit span performance has also been associated with executive function, particularly in the

backward version of the task, which requires not just memory but mental manipulate.

Overall, the digit span task remains a reliable theory based measure of short term memory

capacity and cognitive processes. It is widely used in both research and clinical settings to

assess mental functioning across different populations, from children to adults and

individuals with cognitive impairment. Its consistent application highlights its value in

evaluating attention, working

memory efficiency and mental processing. This makes digit span a key tool grounded in

established psychological theories and model

 4

LITERATURE REVIEW

In a landmark study, Engle et al. (1999) aimed to understand not only how people recall

information, but also how efficiently they do so under time-constrained and cognitively

demanding conditions. The researchers explored the distinctions between short-term memory

and working memory by administering a series of span tasks. These included simple recall

tasks (such as remembering letters or digits), mathematical problem-solving tasks, and dual

tasks where participants had to solve equations while simultaneously remembering sequences

of letters. These combinations were deliberately timed and structured to reflect real-world

cognitive load and to assess how well individuals could store and manipulate information

under pressure.

The finding’ demonstrated that tasks requiring both storage and mental processing—known

as complex span tasks—were far more predictive of fluid intelligence than simple storage-

based tasks. The authors concluded that working memory relies heavily on executive

attention and control, distinguishing it sharply from short-term memory. This has important

implications for clinical assessments like the WAIS-IV, where digit span backward and

especially digit sequencing involve greater mental manipulation than digit forward, thereby

making them better reflections of true working memory capacity. Engle’s work supports the

position that digit sequencing is a superior span test, as it mirrors the kinds of cognitive

challenges seen in complex span research

AIM

The aim of this study is to explore the nature of human memory span, with a focus on

assessing working memory. It seeks to measure the efficiency with which individuals recall

and manipulate information, understand the different types of memory involved in span tasks,

and identify factors such as task complexity and time constraints that influence memory
 5

performance. A particular emphasis is placed on evaluating whether digit sequencing tasks

offer a more accurate reflection of working memory capacity than other types of span tasks

HYPOTHESIS

This study hypothesizes that as the number sequences increase in length and complexity,

participants will recall fewer digits accurately. It is also expected that factors such as gender

and individual levels of distraction may contribute to differences in performance, particularly

in the more challenging phases of the task.

 6

METHODOLOGY

Materials

• Pens

• Sheet of paper

• Stop watch

Sampling Technique

Participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, as the research was

conducted within a classroom setting where all available students, including the researchers

themselves, took part in the experiment.

Research Design

The study used a within-subjects experimental design to examine short-term memory

performance based on digit span. Each participant was exposed to sequences of increasing

digit lengths to test recall ability.

Participants

Thirty-undergraduate psychology students participated as a compulsory component of their

laboratory course. Participation fulfilled a course requirement. All participants were tested in

pairs within the laboratory setting during scheduled class time. No specific demographic data

beyond gender was collected, consistent with the course-focused nature of the activity.

Informed consent was implied through participation in the required coursework.

Software Used

Microsoft Excel was used to carry out statistical analysis and visual data analysis such as our

charts and bar graphs.

 7

Variables

Independent Variable:

• The number of digits in each sequence (e.g., 4, 5, 6, 7 digits). This was manipulated

by increasing the length of the digit sequences presented to participants.

Dependent Variable:

• The number of digits correctly recalled by participants. This was measured as an

indicator of short-term memory span.

Control Variables:

• Time allowed before recall (e.g., 5 seconds)

• Mode of presentation (visual or auditory)

• Testing environment (quiet classroom)

• Digit presentation pace (e.g., 1 second per digit).

Extraneous Variables:

• Participant fatigue or attention span

• Individual differences in memory ability

• Prior exposure to memory tasks

Confounding Variables:

• Participants worked in pairs, differences in reading speed, tone, or clarity of voice

could affect how well others encoded the digits, which might act as confounding

variables.

Procedure
 8

Participants were given an overall overview on how the experiment should be carried out and

asked questions to ensure clarity in carrying out accurate experiment. Participants were

informed about the importance of responding within the given time frame and accurately.

Participants were divided into pairs but were tested individually switching roles after the first

procedure, each pair seated side by side . Participants were seated in the well lit , ventilated

and quiet lab with enough spacing to prevent interference of the voice of other pairs. The

experiment consisted of two memory span tasks. First set was single digit consisting of 8 sets

each set varying in length and the second set was chunk digits consisting of seven sets

varying three to four chunk set. Participants were told to pick between the role of writing and

calling the digits and the role of recalling the digit in which the roles will be switched after

the single digit memory span experiment. Each sequence was called bold and clear at the rate

of 1-2 seconds per item. Participants followed the 5seconde time frame before attempting

recalling and writing down after the digits have been called out. Participant in charge of

calling cross check if their partner recalls correctly after a single attempt, if the digits are

correct participants proceed to next set and if the digits are wrong that marks the end of the

experiment and recorded as the person’s digit memory span.

Ethical Consideration

Prior to participation students were informed about the task and assured their voluntary. The

ethical consideration of this study was guided by the American Psychological Association’s

(APA,2017). In adherence to Principle C: integrity of the American Psychological

Association’s (APA) Ethical principles of psychologist and Code of Conduct (APA,2017),the

researchers maintained strict honesty and accuracy throughout the data collection and

analysis process. Specifically, in line with Standard 8.10(a): Reporting research results, no

data was fabricated, altered, or manipulated in any way. This ensured the integrity of

research.
 9

RESULTS

Table 1: Total numbers recalled by students in 1-digit and 3 or more-digit conditions.

Digit Set Total Numbers Recalled Percentage

1-digit 224 75%

3 or more-digit 74 25%

Fig 1: Bar Chart showing the percentage of recall between the 1-digit and 3 or more-digit

conditions.
 10

Fig 2: Pie Chart showing the percentage of recall performance of the participants in both

conditions.

A total of 30 first-year undergraduate took part in the recall test, 16 people participated in the

1-digit digit set and the remaining 14 people participated in the 3 or more-digit digit set. The

purpose of the study was to compare the number of digits recalled accurately by each group

of participants to figure out the effect of digit length on the memory’s ability to recall. 2

points were awarded for each correct recall. Participants in the 1-digit group were able to

recall more digits in total compared to the participants in the 3 or more-digit group. The total

number of digits correctly recalled in the first group was 224, with a mean recall score of 14

(SD = 3.39) for a total of 16 participants and the total number of digits correctly recalled in

the second group was 74, with a mean recall score of 5.29 (SD = 4.70) for a total of 14

participants. This supports this initial idea that shorter digit sequences are easier to recall than

longer ones. To further show this difference, a pie chart and bar chart were generated based

on the total number of correct recalls in each group. As seen in Fig 1 and 2, the 1-digit group

had 75% of the total digits recalled and the 3 or more-digit group had the remaining 25%.

These visual representations show the difference in performance between the two groups.
 11

In essence, the results show that participants performed significantly better when recalling the

shorter digit set. The results match with existing cognitive psychology literature on the

human’s memory capacity, which suggests that individuals can typically hold between 5 to 9

items in short-term memory at a time (Miller, 1956). The reduced recall performance in the 3

or more-digit group may reflect the cognitive load associated with processing longer

numerical information.
 12

DISCUSSION

Interpretation and Comparison with Literature

The results from our digit span experiment reflect key aspects of short-term memory (STM)

capacity. We conducted two experiments:

Experiment 1: Participants repeated single digits in the same order.

Experiment 2: Participants repeated 3-digit groups, also in the same order.

In Experiment 1, most participants correctly recalled 7 or 8 single digits, resulting in an

average digit span of approximately 7. This aligns with Miller’s (1956) classic theory that

STM holds 7 ± 2 items. The data supports this claim, showing that most people can

comfortably remember 5–9 simple digits. In contrast, performance in Experiment 2 was

lower, with participants recalling an average of 2 to 3 three-digit groups. While chunking is

often believed to enhance memory capacity, this experiment challenges that idea. The chunks

were random (e.g., 325, 682), lacking familiarity or meaningful association. According to

Cowan (2001), STM can hold around 4 chunks, but only if the chunks are well-formed and

meaningful. In our case, chunking did not help because participants could not easily encode

or rehearse unfamiliar 3-digit combinations.

These results are also consistent with Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) Working Memory Model,

particularly the role of the phonological loop. In Experiment 1, participants relied heavily on

verbal rehearsal to remember digits. In Experiment 2, the increased complexity of grouped

digits likely overloaded the phonological loop, leading to poorer recall (Baddeley, 1992). The

findings suggest that chunking is not always effective, especially when the chunks are

arbitrary. Chunking only enhances memory when the grouped information is familiar or

easily rehearsed (e.g., “911” vs. “682”). Therefore, while Miller’s (1956) idea of STM

holding 7 items
 13

is supported in Experiment 1, our results from Experiment 2 align more with Cowan’s (2001)

view of a limited chunk capacity.

In conclusion, our results demonstrate that STM capacity depends not just on quantity, but

also on how information is organized. Familiarity, simplicity, and meaningful associations all

play key roles in successful recall

Limitations of the Experiment

1. Measurement, precision and variability: Digit span tests, like the Wechsler Memory

Scale-III, measures memory span only in whole digits and it tends to underestimate an

individual’s true memory span because testing stops after some errors. This approach

can lead to inconsistent results and variability in scores, which makes it harder to

detect memory problems.

2. Methodological Issues: Since digits are being spoken, factors like how the person

speaks, their tone, and their pronunciation can influence the experiment’s reliability.

Different people have different ways they recall numbers.

3. Time given by the experimenter: The amount of time given to recall the digits or the

short breaks between trials can also affect results. If the person calling the digits is too

quick, it might affect participants performance, potentially underestimating their true

memory span.

4. Age and sensory factors: Old people tend to score lower on auditory digit span tasks,

probably due to hearing difficulties that are not always accounted for.

Implications and real-life applications

• The digit span test is used in clinical and research settings to assess verbal working

memory and attention, which helps with the detection of cognitive problems such as

Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological disorders.

 14

• It is essential in neuropsychological evaluations, educational assessments, and

cognitive aging research, as it helps monitor memory capacity.

• Understanding the limitations guides clinicians to interpret results carefully, especially

in populations with sensory deficits or low literacy.

Suggestions:

• Improved testing protocols: Increasing the number of trials around an individual’s

maximum span and using random digit sequences can provide a more accurate

estimate of memory capacity and reduce variability.

• Combining auditory and visual digit span tests: Combining auditory and visual digit

span tests can help control sensory impairments and give a more understandable

picture of memory function.

• Practice session and trial: Offering practice sessions, especially for those with low

literacy, can reduce guessing and improve accuracy.

• Use of technology: Using computerized testing with standardized timing and digit

presentation can improve the test’s reliability and precision.

 15

REFRENCES

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control

processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation

(Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of

learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-

7421(08)60452-1

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2018). Research design and methods: A process approach (10 th ed.).

McGraw-Hill Education.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage

capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-

term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-

3445.128.3.309

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2016). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (10 th ed.). Cengage

Learning.
 16

Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Bigler, E. D., & Tranel, D. (2012). Neuropsychological assessment

(5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for

processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158