Interference in verbal working memory2008

Interference in verbal working memory:Distinguishing

similarity-based confusion,feature overwriting,

and feature migration q

Klaus Oberauer

a,*

,Elke https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge

b,1

a

Department of Experimental Psychology,University of Bristol,12A Priory Road,Bristol BS81TU,UK b

Department of Psychology,University of Potsdam,PO box 601553,14415Potsdam,Germany

Received 12July 2007;revision received 11September 2007

Available online 19November 2007

Abstract

Reports two experiments on mechanism of interference in working memory.Experiment 1shows that a target word in a memory list,which bears high similarity to one of 4words read aloud in the retention interval,is recalled less well than a control word.A second target word,not similar to any word read aloud but with all its phonemes repeated among the words read aloud,su?ered the same degree of impairment.Feature overwriting explains both results,whereas similarity-based confusion explains only the ?rst.In Experiment 2,participants remembered lists of 4words,followed by 4letters.A target word with high phoneme overlap with the letters was recalled worse than a control word,in line with predictions from feature overwriting.A further target word with many phonological neighbors created by inserting letter phonemes into it was recalled better than a control,contrary to predictions from feature migration.ó2007Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.

Keywords:Working memory;Interference;Features;Similarity

Working memory is a system that provides selective access to a small set of representations for goal-directed processing.Its capacity is severely limited—we can hold

only small amounts of information immediately accessi-ble at the same time.Several hypotheses have been sug-gested on why working memory capacity is limited,among them the idea of a limited resource of activation (Just &Carpenter,1992),a limit to the ability to control attention (Kane,Bleckley,Conway,&Engle,2001),time-based decay (Page &Norris,1998),and interfer-ence between representations held in working memory (Oberauer &Kliegl,2001,2006;Saito &Miyake,2004).The purpose of this article is to investigate one such mechanism,interference,in verbal working mem-ory.We will be concerned with two cases of interfer-ence—interference between items to be held in working memory simultaneously,and interference between mem-ory items and representations involved in a concurrent

0749-596X/$-see front matter ó2007Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.006

q

This work was supported by Grant OB 121/3-3from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG),and by funds from the University of Bristol to the ?rst author.We thank Anja Herklotz,Lena Knappert,Christina Ko ¨rner,Nadine Meyer,and Angeliki Theodoridou for their help in preparing the material and collecting the data,and fruitful discussions about similarity judgments.*

Corresponding author.

E-mail address:k.oberauer@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html, (K.Oberauer).1

Present address:Georgia Institute of Technology,Altanta,GA.

Available online at https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,

Journal of Memory and Language 58(2008)

730–745

Journal of Memory and Language

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,/locate/jml

processing task.The latter case is of interest because working memory is often studied with tasks requiring concurrent storage and processing,as for instance the family of complex span tasks(Conway et al.,2005).

The term interference can refer to various mechanisms by which representations get in each other’s way.Here,we consider three of them,confusion between items,feature migration,and feature overwriting.

Item confusion

When attempting to retrieve a particular item,this item can be confused with other highly available items to the degree that the competitors are similar to the target item,or linked to a similar retrieval cue.This mechanism is implemented in many formal models of serial recall,one of the standard tasks for investigating working memory (Brown,Preece,&Hulme,2000;Burgess&Hitch,1999; Page&Norris,1998).Evidence for item confusion comes primarily from the fact that a large proportion of errors in serial recall tasks are transpositions of items(i.e.,recall of a list item in the wrong serial position),which consist pre-dominantly of confusions between adjacent list items,and become more frequent when list items are similar to each other(Henson,Norris,Page,&Baddeley,1996;Lee& Estes,1977;Wickelgren,1965).

Evidence that confusion of items underlies interference of processing with memory is more ambiguous.De Beni, Palladino,Pazzaglia,and Cornoldi(1998)have used a variant of the complex span paradigm in which partici-pants read short lists of words and signalled each occur-rence of an animal,while simultaneously remembering the last word of each list.Animal words intruded into the recall of the end-of-list words more often than non-animal nouns,and that e?ect was exaggerated in individ-uals with poor reading comprehension.Others,however, have found that intrusions of words from the processing task into the recall of memory items is rare(Chiappe, Hasher,&Siegel,2000;McCabe&Hartman,2003).

Wickelgren(1965)provided?rst evidence for similar-ity-based interference of a to-be remembered list and the material of a processing task,conducted in the retention interval.In his experiments participants had to remem-ber four consonants.After presentation of the memory list eight more consonants had to be copied in writing before recall of the memory list,which varied in their similarity to the memory items.This kind of paradigm is best described as working memory task,manipulating pairwise phonological similarity between stored and pro-cessed information.Whereas Wickelgren(1965)found a clear detrimental e?ect of pairwise similarity,a compara-ble experiment with words provided no evidence for an e?ect of phonological similarity in tasks with verbal material,and no e?ect of visual similarity in tasks using visual-spatial material(Oberauer,Lange,&Engle,2004).In the verbal tasks,there was a small but signi?cant e?ect of semantic similarity between a word in the memory list and a word in the processing-task list.

Feature migration

Whereas item confusion operates on the level of whole items,the second and third mechanisms to be discussed operate on the level of features of items. Therefore,they rest on the assumption that items are represented as conjunctions of features,and interfer-ence arises from the interaction between the features of items held in working memory.One form of feature interaction is feature migration.When more than one item is held in working memory,features can migrate from one item to another,thereby creating illusory conjunctions.Feature migration can be regarded as the analogon to item transpositions on the level of fea-tures—features move to a new list position and thereby become associated to a new item.Evidence for feature migration comes primarily from studies of the serial recall of nonwords,where illicit intrusions of extrane-ous features cannot be repaired by word knowledge (Gathercole,Pickering,Hall,&Peaker,2001;Je?eries, Frankish,&Lambon Ralph,2006).Page,Madge, Cumming,and Norris(2007)have presented evidence suggestive of feature migration with words:Serial recall was impaired when the list contained‘‘Spoonerisms’’, that is,word pairs for which an exchange of their onset phonemes generates two other words.Conjunction errors in working memory have also been demonstrated for faces and compound words(Reinitz&Hannigan,2004; Reinitz,Lammers,&Cochran,1992).No study so far has looked for feature migrations from representations used in a concurrent processing task into memory representations.

Feature overwriting

Feature overwriting has been introduced as a mecha-nism of forgetting in primary memory by Nairne(1990) in the context of his feature model.This model assumes that items are represented as vectors of features with val-ues+1orà1.When two successive items on a list share a feature,that feature is probabilistically overwritten (i.e.,set to0)in the?rst item.Oberauer and Kliegl (2006)extended this mechanism in their model of work-ing memory capacity,assuming that all items held con-currently in working memory overwrite each other’s shared feature with some probability.Hence,the more items are held in working memory simultaneously,and the more they overlap,the more each item’s representa-tion is degraded,thereby posing a limit to the capacity of working memory.Oberauer and Kliegl also o?ered a

K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745731

theoretical rationale for feature overwriting.Following other authors(Hummel&Holyoak,1997;Ra?one& Wolters,2001;Shastri&Ajjanagadde,1993),they assumed that features are represented by oscillating units.Features belonging to the same item are bound together by oscillating in synchrony,whereas features belonging to di?erent items or objects oscillate in di?er-ent phases.A feature unit cannot oscillate in two di?er-ent phases at the same time,and therefore it cannot belong to two items at the same time.If each feature is represented by only one unit,this implies that whenever two items in working memory share a feature,only one can have it.If each feature is represented by a pool of identical units,two items sharing a feature have to share that pool,thereby leading to a weakened representation of that feature in the representations of both items. Binding by synchrony,feature overwriting,and feature migration are illustrated in Fig.1.

Direct evidence for feature overwriting is scarce.The main challenge for a convincing demonstration is to dis-tinguish feature overwriting from similarity-based con-fusion.These two kinds of interference di?er in subtle ways:similarity-based confusion of whole items is a function of pairwise similarity between the items poten-tially confused.Two highly similar words,for example, share the majority of their phonemes(e.g.,‘‘beat—beast’’,‘‘gran—gram’’,‘‘murk—mark’’).In addition, high pairwise similarity requires that the phonemes in both words occur in largely the same order.The high degree of feature overlap between pairwise similar items implies that they would also be expected to interfere with each other strongly through feature overwriting. Overwriting,however,does not require pairwise similar-ity.A high degree of feature overlap can also be gener-ated in a distributed way,such that a target word shares all its phonemes with other words,but the over-lap is distributed over several words.For instance,the target word‘‘cake’’has four phonemes(keIk),which are spread over the four words optic(‘A pt I k,sharing the last two phonemes),layette(le I’et,sharing the three middle phonemes),fork(f c:k,sharing the last phoneme) and ankle(‘?N kl,sharing the next to last phoneme).In addition,the position of overlapping phonemes is irrel-evant for feature overwriting.As a consequence,we can create constellations of high feature overlap between a target item and several interfering items while at the same time keeping the pairwise similarity between the target and any interfering item low.With this constella-

tion,the feature overwriting hypothesis predicts interfer-ence but the similarity-based confusion hypothesis does not.

To our knowledge,no experiment has so far demon-strated feature overwriting between memory list items. There is,however,evidence for overwriting between mem-ory items and distractors involved in a processing task in the retention interval.In a set of experiments we asked participants to remember short lists of words or nonwords in order,and to read aloud a further set of words or non-words in the retention interval(Lange&Oberauer,2005). The phonemes of one target item on the memory list were repeated at least once throughout the distractors,whereas the phonemes of the remaining memory items were only rarely repeated in other items used in that trial.The target items were recalled less well than the control items,as

732K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

would be expected if the target items lost some of their phoneme representations to the distractors that claimed the same phonemes.

The purpose of the present investigation is to distin-guish the three hypothetical mechanisms of interference and test whether they operate in verbal working mem-ory.Experiment1contrasts pairwise similarity and dis-tributed overlap in the same experiment,using the paradigm in which we previously observed feature over-writing with distributed overlap(Lange&Oberauer, 2005),and the very similar paradigm in which we failed to?nd an e?ect of phonological similarity between mem-ory items and materials in a processing task(Oberauer et al.,2004).Experiment2tests for feature overwriting and feature migration within memory lists of a serial-recall task without distracting activity.

Experiment1A

In the?rst experiment,we compared pairwise simi-larity and distributed overlap in a dual-task combina-tion of storage and processing.Both relations were manipulated between words of a memory list and the words of the processing task;the latter words had to be read aloud in the retention interval and will therefore be referred to as the reading list.In each memory list of ?ve words,there were three critical words:the similarity target(T-SIM),which had high pairwise similarity to one of the words on the reading list,the overlap target (T-OVER),with a distributed overlap relation to the reading list,and a non-target control word(NT),which had low pairwise similarity to,and little feature overlap with,all other words involved in the trial.

The confusion account of representational interfer-ence predicts that words with high pairwise similarity to a secondary-task word(T-SIM)would be recalled worse than the control words(NT),but recall of words with low pairwise similarity but high distributed overlap(T-OVER)should not be impaired.The feature overwriting account predicts that both T-SIM and T-OVER should be impaired relative to NT,because both target words have a higher degree of overlap with the reading-list words and therefore should su?er from more overwriting. Unfortunately,it is not possible to construct words with high pairwise similarity but low overlap.

In most experiments investigating the phonological similarity e?ect,similarity has been manipulated on the basis of intuitive judgments by the experimenter.To put manipulations of pairwise similarity on a more objective basis,Graf,Braun,Jacobs,and Hellbru¨ck(2002)devel-oped a measure of phonological similarity between word pairs,taking di?erent word length into account:

PS?ePwàj PwàPp jT?Pwp

Pw2

?

ePPwpt1T?100

Pwpt1

e1T

where PS refers to phonological similarity,Pw is the

number of phonemes in the target word,Pp is the num-

ber of phonemes in the reference word,Pwp refers to the

number of phonemes shared by target and reference,

regardless of their positions,and PPwp is the number

of shared phonemes in the same position.

The equation consists of two terms.The?rst term

determines the overlap of phonemes between a target

and a reference regardless of the positions of phonemes,

but considering the length of both words.The second

term captures overlap of phonemes in the same position,

counting positions from the beginning to the end of a

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,ing this metric to manipulate di?erent degrees

of similarity,Graf et al.(2002)showed that the phono-

logical similarity e?ect increased monotonically with the

average similarity between all pairs of words in a mem-

ory list.Because this similarity computation seemed to

work well,we used it in our experiment.

Methods

Participants

Forty students of the University of Potsdam,Ger-

many,three students of di?erent high schools of Pots-

dam(grade9to13),and two trainees volunteered to

participate in the experiment in exchange for a small

honorarium or course credits.Participants were assigned

to one of three groups in a rotating scheme.One of the

participants had to be excluded from analysis,because

he or she did not conduct the reading task according

to instructions,leaving data from44participants for

analysis.For all participants German was the native

language.

Design and material

Each of the60test trials consisted of a memory list of

?ve words and a reading list of four words.Each mem-

ory list consisted of three critical words and two?ller

words.One critical word,T-SIM,had high pairwise sim-

ilarity to one reading list word and low pairwise similar-

ity to all other words in the memory list and the reading

list.Another critical word,T-OVER,bore a relation of

high distributed feature overlap to the reading list but

had low pairwise similarity to all items in both lists.

The third critical word was a non-target control word

(NT)that had low pairwise similarity and low overlap

with all other words of both lists.The remaining two?l-

ler words in the memory list also had low pairwise sim-

ilarity and low overlap relation with all other words in

the trial.

Three sets of materials were prepared,each assigned

to one of the three groups of participants.The memory

lists were identical in the three sets,but associated with

three di?erent reading lists.The reading lists determined

which roles each of the three critical words in the mem-

ory list played in the experimental design.For conve-K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745733

nience we label the three critical words C1,C2,and C3 in arbitrary order.The?rst reading list was composed such that C1had the role of T-SIM,C2had the role of T-OVER,and C3had the role of NT.The second reading list was built to assign C2the role of T-SIM, C3the role of T-OVER,and C1the role of NT.Finally, the third reading list was assembled such that C3had the role of T-SIM,C1took the role of T-OVER,and C2?g-ured as NT.In this way the role of the critical words in the experimental design(T-SIM,T-OVER,or NT)was not confounded with any features of particular words that might a?ect recall probability,such as word length, word frequency,or imageability.

Serial positions of the memory list words were ran-domised for each participant and each trial,with the constraint that each of the critical words occupied each serial position equally often for each participant.Serial positions of the reading list words were also randomized.

Lists consisted of one-syllable and two-syllable words.

A pool of2273German nouns was used to build the lists. Each word was converted to its phonological transcript, using the Oxford Superlex,an electronic dictionary by Oxford University Press.The dictionary distinguished 48phonetic symbols,which we reduced to41categories of sounds by assigning several phonetic symbols to the same category(e.g.,allophones).Lists were generated by a computer program,which started by choosing mem-ory list items at random from the pool and computing pairwise phonological similarity values between them using Eq.(1)(Graf et al.,2002).Overlap positions in Eq.(1)are numbered from the?rst to the last position, which underestimates similarity of items agreeing in the end positions when target and reference di?er in word length(e.g.,‘‘theme’’and‘‘phoneme’’).Therefore,the computation was carried out twice,once counting posi-tions forwards and once counting them backwards,and the higher value was taken as the similarity value PS.Dis-tributed overlap was computed by counting the propor-tion of phonemes of the target that occurred in any word of the reading list,excluding overlapping phonemes in the same position to tease apart the overlap metric and the similarity metric as much as possible.Memory-list words were selected such that all their pairwise similarities were PS<20,and each word shared less than20%of pho-nemes with any other word in the list.

Next,reading lists were assembled such that the critical words from the memory list ful?lled the criteria for their roles as T-SIM,T-OVER,and NT,respectively.A word quali?ed as T-SIM if its similarity with one word on the reading list exceeded70on the PS scale.A word quali?ed as T-OVER if all its phonemes were used in the reading list at least once,and its pairwise similarity with each reading-list word was less than30.Also,reading-list words sharing more than three phonemes in successive positions with T-OVER were excluded.A word ful?lled the criteria for NT if its pairwise similarity to all reading-list words was PS<30,and at the same time less than30%of its features were overlapped by the reading list.

After the automatic generation of the experimental lists,we?ne-tuned the material by hand to correct some de?ciencies of Eq.(1).For instance,consider the word pair‘‘intent’’and‘‘entrance’’.Three phonemes of neigh-boring positions at the end of‘‘intent’’overlapped with three phonemes of the beginning of the reference ‘‘entrance’’.The overlapping phonemes,however,do not share the same intra-word positions,leading to a comparatively low value for the second term of Eq.

(1),which ignores matching sequences of phonemes when they are not in the same position.In addition, we considered that syllable structure and stress play a role for pairwise phonological similarity(Drewnowski &Murdock,1980).Therefore,we decided to rate the automatically generated lists to screen out lists that did not meet the following criteria:Words that should have high pairwise similarity(i.e.,T-SIM and its counterpart in the reading list)were required to have the same num-ber of syllables.Words that should have low pairwise similarity(i.e.,T-OVER with all the reading-list words) should not share a sequence of more than2successive phonemes,should not share a complete syllable,and should not be rated as phonological similar by the rat-ers.Moreover,we attempted to minimize any semantic relations between the words of a memory list.Three experts judged every list according to these criteria.Lists were selected for the experiment if there was consensus that they met the criteria.We had to run the computer program,which generated the3·60trials,nine times to put together the experimental lists.Table1summa-rizes the proportion of overlap(i.e.,the proportion of memory item features repeated at least once in one of the distractors),the similarity of memory items with the most similar distractor,and the mean similarity of memory items with the four distractors,for T-SIM,T-OVER,and NT words in the?nal set of trials. Procedure

Participants were tested individually in a quiet room.

A written test instruction informed them about the pro-cedure of the experiment and about two conditions they should meet.First,they were asked to use an articula-tory rehearsal strategy for the memory task.This instruction was given because Hanley and Bakopoulou (2003)have shown that the phonological similarity e?ect disappears when participants are instructed to use a semantic encoding strategy.2Second,participants were 2An unpublished experiment in which we did not instruct participants to use a particular strategy failed to replicate the e?ect of distributed feature overlap of Lange and Oberauer (2005),and we suspected that the main reason for this was that participants used a non-phonological encoding strategy to reduce interference from the reading task.

734K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

instructed to say aloud the reading-list items clearly,but in a relaxed manner and not very loudly.To ensure that participants conducted the reading task we recorded their verbalization with a dictating machine with a highly sensitive built-in microphone(SONY portable dictator BM23).

The experiments started with6practice trials,fol-lowed by6blocks of10test trials each.Presentation order of the60test trials was randomised between par-ticipants.At the beginning of each trial a rectangular frame was displayed in the upper half of the screen 1000ms before presentation of the?rst memory list word.The?ve memory-list words were displayed sequentially in this frame,1000ms per word,each fol-lowed by a200ms blank interval.The frame and the memory-list words were turquoise on a black back-ground.After memory list presentation the screen went blank for1500ms,followed by the display of a second rectangular frame on the lower half of the screen,in which the words of the reading task were presented one by one.The frame and the reading-list words were coloured pink.Each word had to be read aloud.When participants pressed the space bar the next word replaced the previous one.After the last reading-task word a yellow question mark was shown,and partici-pants were to recall the memory list serially by writing the words into?ve horizontally ordered slots on an answer sheet.They were instructed to place each word into its correct serial position,and to mark omissions by a dash or leave the slot blank.After?nishing their recall attempt,participants could start the next trial by pressing the key‘‘w’’for the German word‘‘weiter’’(English:‘‘next’’).The duration of the experiment was approximately one hour.

Scoring

We listened to every record of the reading task,spot-checking several time periods to ensure that participants followed the instruction to read throughout the experi-ment;this was the case for all participants.We examined 13records selected at random thoroughly,scoring the accuracy of reading on each trial.Participants reading less than80%of the trials correctly were excluded from analysis;this was the case for one participant.

Recall responses were categorized into one of the fol-lowing answer types:correct,omission,transposition (=order error),intrusion from the current trial’s read-ing list,intrusion from the preceding memory list or reading list,and other errors.Answers of the last cate-gory were judged by two raters for being semantically related to the to-be-remembered word,phonologically related,or unrelated.The two rates agreed in89.8%of all694cases.One of the ratings was chosen at random for analysis.The proportions of responses falling into each answer type(except the residual category of unre-lated extra-list words)were submitted to pairwise com-parisons of the two target types with the non-target control.An alpha level of.05was used in all statistical tests.The e?ect size is given as eta squared(g2).Analyses were two-tailed.

Results

The proportion of recall responses falling into each category is given in Table2.As predicted by the over-writing hypothesis,the proportions of correct recall of both target types were lower than that of non-target control words,with t(43)=2.74,p<.01,g2=.149for T-SIM,and t(43)=3.79,p<.001,g2=.251for T-OVER.Contrary to the confusion hypothesis,which would predict a performance decrease for T-SIM but not for T-OVER,correct recall of these two target types did not di?er,t(43)=.354,p=.73,g2=.003.

In accordance with the confusion hypothesis,how-ever,the proportion of intrusions from the reading list was larger for T-SIM than for the non-target control, t(43)=5.68,p<.001,g2=.428,whereas no di?erence in intrusion proportions was found for T-OVER com-pared to NT,t<1.To be more precise we established how often the critical word of the reading list was recalled instead of the T-SIM that it was similar to,com-pared to how often the same reading-list word replaced T-OVER or NT.The critical word replaced T-SIM in 1.17%of all trials,but it replaced T-OVER in only 0.49%of all trials,and NT in0.53%.These di?erences were signi?cant,with t(43)=2.16,p<.05,g2=.098 for the comparison of T-SIM and NT,and t(43)=2.25,p<.05,g2=.105for the comparison of T-SIM and T-OVER.

For the remaining seven response categories there were no predictions.Therefore,we applied a Bonferroni adjustment to the14t-tests for comparisons between

Table1

Mean similarities and overlap proportions between memory list words and distractors in Experiment1(SD in parentheses)

Target Target Non-target

T-SIM T-OVER Control Proportion of overlap84.1(11.6)100(0)14.7(11.9) Similarity with most similar distractor76.1(2.2)20.7(4.0) 6.4(6.7) Mean similarity with distractors23.5(3.7)12.7(3.1) 1.6(1.7) K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745735

each of the two targets and the non-target involving the error proportions.This resulted in no more signi?cant di?erences.Applying a non-adjusted alpha level,T-OVER di?ered from NT in the proportion of omissions, t(43)=2.18,p=.035,g2=.099,and in the proportion of phonologically related wrong answers,t(43)=2.58, p=.013,g2=.134.

Phonological similarity e?ects within memory lists often di?er for item and for order errors in serial recall (e.g.,Fallon,Groves,&Tehan,1999;Karlsen&Lian, 2005),and rhyming items seem to have a special status, often resulting in better item memory compared to dis-similar lists(e.g.,Nimmo&Roodenrys,2004).There-fore,we conducted additional analyses investigating whether similarity between memory items and distrac-tor items followed a similar pattern.Item recall is de?ned as probability of correct recall of a memory-list item independently of its position.Order recall is de?ned as the conditional probability of recalling an item in its correct serial position,given that it has been recalled at all.

Item recall of both targets was worse than that of the non-target control,with t(34)=2.20,p<.05,g2=.101 for T-SIM,and t(34)=3.51,p<.01,g2=.223for T-OVER.Mean item recall was72.77%(SD=17.78)for T-SIM,71.82%(SD=18.20)for T-OVER,and 75.15%(SD=16.97)for NT.There was no di?erence between any of the targets and the non-target control with regard to order recall,both t’s<1.6.Mean order recall was89.84%(SD=9.18)for T-SIM,90.15% (SD=10.48)for T-OVER,and91.07%(SD=8.26) for NT.Thus,the adverse e?ects of similarity and of overlap were both due to impaired item memory.

In the pairwise similarity condition some of the T-SIM items rhymed with their corresponding word in the reading list.Across the three groups of participants between30%and43%of all similar word pairs were rhyming pairs.These pairs were analysed separately and compared with non-rhyming pairs of similar items. Rhyming and non-rhyming T-SIM items di?ered neither in recall accuracy nor in the distributions of error types.

Discussion

Both pairwise similarity between memory items and the reading-task items,and distributed feature overlap, led to a performance decrement in serial recall of about the same size.Because T-SIM and T-OVER had roughly the same degree of phonemic overlap with the reading list,this result would be expected if interfer-ence between memory and reading aloud is largely dri-ven by overwriting of phonemic features.If interference were largely due to item confusion,T-SIM items should be recalled worse than T-OVER,because only the for-mer were highly confusable with any reading-list item. Both pairwise similarity and feature overlap had their e?ect only on item recall,there was no apparent e?ect on recall of serial order.This?nding is again consistent with feature overwriting:Overwriting degrades the rep-resentation of items,thereby making the recovery of its identity di?cult,but it does not shift the remaining fea-tures of an item to a di?erent serial position.The?nd-ing that pairwise similarity led to more intrusions than in the control condition,whereas more omissions occurred in the case of distributed overlap,suggests that item confusion does play an additional role besides feature overwriting.This role cannot have been very strong,however,because the proportion of intrusions from the reading list was small,and accuracy of T-SIM was not pulled down to a level below that of T-OVER.

The negative e?ect of distributed feature overlap on recall accuracy replicates previous results(Lange& Oberauer,2005).Our?nding of a negative e?ect of pair-wise similarity,however,di?ers from the experiment of Oberauer et al.(2004),in which a very similar manipu-lation of similarity between memory-list words and reading-list words did not produce increased interfer-ence,despite larger statistical power(N=120)than in the present experiment.The experiments di?er,among other things,in the extent of control over the phonolog-ical features of memory items and reading-list items and the relations between them.The tight control in the present experiment may have made the manipulation of pairwise similarity stronger,because the similar pairs stood out against a background of items that were intentionally made dissimilar.Possibly more relevant, the present experiment implied a stronger di?erence in feature overlap between T-SIM and NT items,because feature overlap was minimized for NT items.In our pre-vious study we took no measures to minimize feature

Table2

Mean proportions of response categories in Experiment1

T-SIM T-OVER Non-target control

Correct66.3665.9969.13

Omissions18.4919.8117.96

Transpositions 6.40 5.83 6.02

Intrusion RL 3.26 1.100.91

Intrusion PML0.420.460.42

Intrusion PRL0.270.300.19

Phonological 2.99 4.66 3.45

Semantic0.230.270.27

Other 1.59 1.59 1.67

Note:The sum of each column equals100%.Correct,words

recalled at their correct serial position;Transpositions,recall of

a list item in wrong position;Intrusion,intrusions from other

sources than the memory list(RL,reading list;PML,previous

memory list;PRL,previous reading list);Phonological,pho-

nologically related errors;Semantic,semantically related errors.

736K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

overlap in the condition with low pairwise similarity.A reanalysis of the material of Oberauer et al.(2004)con-?rms this:the proportion of phonemes of memory words that overlapped with any of the reading-list words was67in the high similarity condition and43 in the low similarity condition.This contrast is much smaller than the one realized here(T-SIM:84,NT: 15).This comparison does not yet take into account the feature overlap between memory items,which was minimized in the present experiment but not in Obe-rauer et al.(2004).A further di?erence between the two studies is that here we instructed participants to use articulatory rehearsal,whereas no such instruction was given by Oberauer et al.(2004).In the Oberauer et al.(2004)study a small but signi?cant e?ect of seman-tic similarity between memory-list words and reading-list words was observed,suggesting that a substantial part of participants has abandoned phonological encod-ing of memory items in favour of semantic encoding. This could explain why no e?ect of phonological simi-larity was found in that study.

It could be argued that,despite our e?orts to mini-mize pairwise similarity between T-OVER and any of the distractors,the adverse e?ect of distributed overlap can still be explained by similarity-based confusion or competition between items for recall.The T-OVER items bear a low but non-negligible similarity to all four reading-list items,due to their shared features, and thus they compete for recall with four distractors that,although weak individually,collude to interfere with the target item.We think this explanation is unli-kely because the T-OVER items’mean pairwise simi-larity to the reading-list words was only half as large as that of the T-SIM items(see Table1).This asser-tion,however,depends on the validity of the similarity metric we used.We conducted Experiment1B to obtain independent evidence on the pairwise similarities between T-SIM,T-OVER,and NT words and the cor-responding distractor words from similarity ratings.In addition,in Experiment2we made a further attempt to show interference through feature overwriting,this time using letters to overwrite words,because it is extremely unlikely that letters would be confused with words,or would compete with words for recall.

Experiment1B

We collected subjective similarity estimations of word pairs from Experiment1A to obtain validation for our contention that pairwise similarity between T-SIM and the corresponding similar distractor was substantially larger than the pairwise similarity between T-OVER and any of the distractors.The similarity rat-ings for pairs involving T-OVER should be very close to those for pairs with NT words.Methods

Participants

Three hundred and thirty-two volunteers partici-pated in the experiment,which was conducted via the internet.Participants did not get reimbursement for their participation,but were thanked for helping the psychological research of the University of Potsdam. Advertisements for this survey were posted at several web sites(http://genpsylab-wexlist.unizh.ch,http://www. psych.uni-potsdam.de/cognitive/weblab/index-d.html, http://www.w-lab.de).There were228female and104 male participants.Average age was28years(based on 329answers,3participants?lled in unrealistic ages). Sixty participants reported professional activity in Experimental Psychology and54stated of being inter-ested in Experimental Psychology as a hobby;119had participated in a psychological experiment before.High-est educational degree of the volunteers was mainly high school,college or university(89%).

Materials and apparatus

The material of Experiment1A consisted of180crit-ical words that occurred in di?erent roles(T-SIM,T-OVER,and NT)in the three groups of participants;in the present experiment,we obtained similarity ratings for all180words in each of its roles.That is,each word was paired with its similar distractor when it had the role of T-SIM,it was paired with each of the four distractors when it had the role of T-OVER,and paired with each of the four distractors when it had the role of NT.Thus, each word was paired with a total of nine other words.

Because an internet experiments has to be very short to minimize attrition,we gave each participant60word pairs to rate,20T-SIM pairs,20T-OVER pairs,and20 NT pairs.Because there were four times as many T-OVER pairs and NT pairs as there were T-SIM pairs, the T-SIM pairs were rated four times as often as the other pairs.The180T-SIM word pairs of each group were randomly divided into nine sets of20pairs,and the720T-OVER pairs were randomly divided into36 sets of20,as were the720NT pairs.We then combined each T-OVER set with one NT set and with one T-SIM set,using the T-SIM sets repeatedly in a rotating scheme.This resulted in36sets consisting of20T-SIM pairs,20T-OVER pairs,and20NT pairs.Each partic-ipant was assigned one of these36sets at random.The pairs were presented in a new random order for each participant.The experiment was programmed by a com-bination of html,php and java script.

Procedure

Participants were informed that the experiment was about phonological similarity of words,and that they should estimate whether two words sounded similar or not.They were asked to imagine the sound of the words

K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745737

before giving the estimation.Similarity was judged by a 7-point-scale from(1)‘‘not similar’’to(7)‘‘very simi-lar’’,assigned to7buttons arranged from left to right on the screen.Participants could change a once given estimation,but it was not possible to skip a pair.Trials were arranged in tables,with one line for each trial, divided into two columns.In the left column the word pairs were written and in the right column the7buttons for the estimation were displayed.All participants worked through the same5practice trials,which were chosen to demonstrate the whole range of possible sim-ilarities.Practice pairs were not repeated in the experi-mental trials.The60test trials were presented on six pages of10trials each;the order of the60trials was determined at random for each participant.After the estimation participants were asked to provide some per-sonal information,including age,sex,and the highest educational quali?cation.

Results and discussion

We analyzed the similarity ratings as a within-sub-jects design using the180words as cases and their role (T-SIM,T-OVER,and NT),which is represented in the pairing with distractor words,as independent vari-able(because7words were repeated among the180crit-ical words,we collapsed ratings for them,resulting in N=173for the analysis).On a scale from(1)‘‘not sim-ilar’’to(7)‘‘very similar’’the mean rating for T-SIM pairs were 5.11(SD=.99),for T-OVER pairs was 1.45(SD=.24),and for NT pairs was1.14(SD=.11). The T-SIM pairs were rated as more similar than the T-OVER pairs,t(172)=47.29,p<.000,g2=.929,as well as the NT pairs,t(172)=52.38,p<.000, g2=.941.The rated similarity of the T-OVER pairs was still signi?cantly higher than that of the NT pairs, t(172)=16.03,p<.000,g2=.599.Whereas word pairs formed to create pairwise similarity(T-SIM pairs)were judged as very similar,word pairs built to create distrib-uted overlap(T-OVER pairs)were estimated as much less similar;their similarity was judged to be just slightly higher than that of NT pairs.Therefore,the recall com-petition from reading-task words was not much higher for T-OVER target words than for NT words in Exper-iment1A,but it was substantially higher for T-SIM words.Nonetheless,T-OVER and T-SIM words suf-fered an equal amount of interference from the distrac-tor words.This interference,therefore,is unlikely to be due to confusion or response competition between similar items.

Experiment2

Experiment2had three goals.First,we asked whether feature overwriting could also be observed between items of a memory list.The classical phonolog-ical similarity e?ect refers to similarity among memory list items,whereas the feature overlap e?ect so far has been demonstrated only for overlap between memory items and items used in a distractor task.If we succeed in demonstrating feature overwriting within memory lists,the classical phonological similarity e?ect could be in part due to feature overwriting,because higher similarity typically implies a larger amount of feature overlap.The second goal was to test for feature over-writing in conditions in which confusion of items is very unlikely.Therefore,we used memory lists consisting of four words followed by four consonants.One word’s features were overlapped by the consonant phonemes of the letters,thus becoming a potential target for fea-ture overwriting.At the same time people would hardly be tempted to recall a letter instead of a word.The third goal was to investigate whether feature migrations also contribute to interference in working memory.To this end,a second word was chosen as the target for feature migration—it was selected such that many other words would be created by replacing one of its pho-nemes by a consonant phoneme from the letters.We call the words that could be created in this way induced neighbors,because they are neighbors of the target word in the lexicon that are potentially induced by let-ter features migrating into the target word.We predict that,if feature migration occurs,the migration target will be recalled less accurately than a control word with fewer induced neighbors.The reason for this prediction is that feature migration from the letters into the migra-tion target word is likely to produce another word, whereas migration into the control word is more likely to produce a nonword.People know that there were four words on the list but no nonwords,so if during recall a nonword is retrieved,they would not produce it but rather search for the closest word for output,a search that could lead to the correct word.If the out-come of retrieval is a word,however,there is no reason to hold it back.Therefore,if feature migration turned the representation of the migration target into one of its neighbors,this neighbor is likely to be recalled in error.

Methods

Participants

Thirty native speakers of English participated,21 female and9male.Seventeen were undergraduate stu-dents at the University of Bristol,England;6were post-graduate students,4research assistants,2secretaries and1college student.Mean age was21.9years,ranging from18to28years.Ten participants received course credit for participating and20were reimbursed with ￡7.Paid volunteers were recruited through an experi-ment advert posted on the university website.

738K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

Materials

Ninety six sets of4words followed by4consonants were constructed.The words were selected from a pool of500words that were nouns,verbs or adjectives and had low emotional meaning(as rated by the authors). All words had frequency(CELEX total)greater than2 per million,and subjective familiarity and imageability (MRC)greater than300,as determined by N-watch (Davis,2005).

In each list there were two target and two control words.In particular,in each trial three of the four con-sonants overlapped with the phonemes in one of the tar-get words,called the overlap target.Phonological overlap of these consonants with the other three words was minimized.The second target word,called the migration target,could be turned into a new word (i.e.,a phonological neighbor)if one of its phonemes was replaced by one of the consonant phonemes of the letter set.Three of the four consonants in the letter set could form a phonological neighbor of the migration target if they replaced one of its phonemes.The fourth consonant was a?ller letter included to make the exper-imental manipulation less obvious;it was randomly cho-sen from the alphabet with the constraint that it had no phonological overlap with any of the four words.For example,a list would be‘‘beer,fond,vote,silk,N,D, P,F’’.The?rst word is the migration target—among its neighbors induced by inserting the consonants in the second part of the list are‘‘bean’’,‘‘beef’’,‘‘deer’’, and‘‘fear’’.The second list word is the overlap target; all three of its consonant phonemes are overwritten by the letters N,D,and F(the letter P is the?ller letter).

All induced phonological neighbors had frequency (CELEX total)greater than2per million.It was also ensured that in each trial only the migration target had neighbors induced by the letter set,whereas no neighbors of the overwrite target were induced by any of the three non-?ller consonants.The phonological neighbors of all words used in the lists were found with the help of N-Watch(Davis,2005),which also served to determine their frequencies.We did not use the neigh-bors o?ered by N-Watch directly because they are orthographic rather than phonological neighbors. Instead,we?rst converted all words in N-Watch into their phonological transcripts,using the DISC transcrip-tion,which has the advantage of coding each phoneme by exactly one symbol.We then listed all phonological neighbors for each word,that is,all words whose DISC transcript di?ered in exactly one symbol from the source word.From this list,we created96pairs of target words, combined with three consonants,such that one word would have the role of the migration target(i.e.,the three consonants induced phonological neighbors of that word),and the other word took the role of the over-lap target(i.e.,the same three consonants overlapped the consonants of that word).These pairs constituted the two target words for the lists.

In the next step each target word was paired with one control word.The96overlap targets were used as overlap controls in other lists,and likewise,the96 migration targets were used as migration controls in other lists.A computer program assembled the96lists such that the overlap of each control word with the let-ters,as well as with other list words,was minimized, and at the same time both control words had a mini-mum of induced neighbors.In this way,each set of tar-get words acted as its own control across the set of96 lists,such that any di?erence in recall accuracy between targets and their corresponding controls cannot be due to di?erences in the characteristics of the words,but must be due to the list context of the words,that is, the degree of overwriting and the number of induced neighbors.The resulting lists had the following proper-ties:72of the96control words for migration targets and57of the control words for overwrite targets had no overlap at all with any other list element.The mean number of neighbors induced by any other phoneme on the list was 4.93for the migration targets,0.26 for the overwrite targets,2.28for the migration con-trols,and0.83for the overwrite controls.The relatively high number of induced neighbors for migration con-trols re?ects the fact that these words were selected for having relatively many neighbors in the language, so that it is hard to avoid inducing at least some of them.Still there were nearly three more neighbors induced,on average,for the migration targets than for their controls.

Procedure

The96lists were presented in a new random order for each participant.Within each list,the consonants always followed the words,but the order of the four words and the order of the four consonants were determined at ran-dom,with the constraint that the?rst consonant must not be the initial letter of the overwrite target.This con-straint was introduced to conceal the nature of the over-write manipulation.

Each trial started with a?xation cross placed in the middle of the screen followed by a set of four words and four consonants that were displayed one by one in the middle of a white screen.All items were presented in black,words in lower case and letters in upper case. Each item was displayed for900ms followed by a 100ms blank screen.Immediately after presentation of the items a prompt for recall was displayed in red.Par-ticipants were instructed to read aloud the words and letters as they were presented,and then recall them aloud in the order of presentation.Whenever partici-pants failed to recall an item they were asked to guess. The experimenter kept a written record of individual responses.

K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745739

After four practice trials,participants worked through four blocks of24test trials.They were encour-aged to take a short break after each block.At the end of the experiment participants were asked what they thought the experiment was about and whether they noticed any association between the presented items. No participant noticed a pattern in the stimuli.

Results

Table3presents an overview of the proportions of words recalled correctly in position,and the proportions of three categories of errors(i.e.,order errors,item errors that were phonological neighbours of the correct word,and other item errors).3Overwrite targets were recalled correctly less often than their controls, t(29)=à3.14,p=.004.This result con?rms the predic-tion of interference through overwriting.Correct recall was higher for the migration targets than for their con-trols,t(29)=3.39,p=.002.This?nding is the opposite of what we predicted on the basis of interference through feature migration.

Both e?ects were entirely due to item recall(i.e.,the probability of recalling the correct list item anywhere in the recall sequence).Percent item recall of overwrite targets(M=76,SD=11)was smaller than that of their controls(M=80,SD=10),t(29)=à3.66,p=.001.A larger percentage of migration targets(M=78, SD=10)was recalled than of their controls(M=74, SD=10),t(29)=3.37,p=.002.Order accuracy, de?ned as conditional probability of correct position, given the item was recalled correctly,was between.87 and.88for all four conditions,with no signi?cant di?er-ences(both t’s<1).

If features from the letters migrated into the migra-tion targets,thereby turning them into one of their induced neighbors,we should?nd that migration targets are more frequently replaced by one of their neighbors in recall,compared to migration controls.This was not the case:Migration targets were replaced by one of their neighbors on4.3%of all trials,and migration controls on4.4%of all trials.

Discussion

We replicated the interfering e?ect of distributed feature overlap in a new paradigm that focuses on interference between memory items,rather than on interference from a distractor task on working memory contents.Repeating three consonant phonemes of a target word in the context of three di?erent letters in random order impairs item recall of the target word. The use of letters as interfering material served to min-imize confusion between the overwrite target and any of the overwriting items(in fact,no participant ever recalled a letter in place of a word).Therefore,we can be con?dent that the e?ect was not due to confu-sion between items,but rather must be attributed to the interaction of the item’s features—in the present case,the phonemes involved.Thus,the feature overlap e?ect in this experiment provides the most compelling evidence so far for overwriting of phonemic features in verbal working memory.The fact that overlapping features of items held in working memory simulta-neously tend to overwrite each other implies that the standard phonological similarity e?ect in serial recall could in part be due to feature overwriting,rather than item confusion.

Contrary to our expectations,a high number of phonological neighbors induced by potential feature migrations from other memory items did not impair but improve item memory for the migration targets. This is not what we would expect if phonemes from the consonants migrated into these targets,turning them into one of their neighbors.The help from induced neighbors rather is reminiscent of the?nding that words with larger neighborhood size(i.e.,more neighbors in the language)are recalled better than words with small neighborhoods(Roodenrys,Hulme, Lethbridge,Hinton,&Nimmo,2002;Thorn&Frank-ish,2005).One explanation of this e?ect is that neigh-bors are co-activated in lexical-semantic long-term memory,and this activation assists reproduction of the correct https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,rge neighborhood size also helps speech production,and therefore the bene?cial e?ect of neighborhood size on serial recall arguably arises because activated neighbors of the memory item con-verge on the appropriate speech representation(Allen &Hulme,2006).The present contrast between migra-tion targets and their controls holds neighborhood size constant,because across all trials the targets and their controls were the same words.The neighbors of the migration targets,however,can be assumed to be more active because they receive additional activation from the letters concurrently held in working memory.For example,the migration target‘‘beer’’would activate the lexical representation of‘‘beer’’in long-term mem-ory,and also activate the lexical representations of its phonological(and orthographic)neighbors to some degree.When the letter‘‘F’’is held in working mem-ory,it contributes additional activation to some of these neighbors(i.e.,‘‘fear’’and‘‘beef’’).Therefore, at recall,the representations involved in producing ‘‘beer’’receive stronger support from these neighbors compared to a list in which‘‘F’’was not present(i.e.,

3There were no omissions in this experiment because

participants were instructed to provide a response for each list

position,guessing when necessary.Semantically related

responses were very infrequent in Experiment1,so we did

not count them separately here.

740K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

when‘‘beer’’acts as a migration control word).In this explanation,the representation of‘‘beer’’in working memory is not compromised by feature migration, but rather,the e?ect of induced neighbors comes about through the interaction of working-memory representa-tions with corresponding representations in long-term memory.

General discussion

We investigated the contribution of three hypotheti-cal mechanisms of interference in verbal working mem-ory:similarity-based confusion of items,overwriting of phonemic features,and migration of phonemic features. Experiment1looked at interference between‘‘storage’’and‘‘processing’’in a dual-task paradigm,and Experi-ment2focused on interference between items in a serial-recall task.

Similarity-based confusion

There is strong evidence for similarity-based confu-sions between items within a memory list:lists of phono-logically similar items are recalled worse than lists of dissimilar items,and the e?ect is largely due to an increase in order errors(e.g.,Henson et al.,1996;Lee &Estes,1977).Less clear is whether confusion of items also contributes to interference between memory con-tents and a concurrent processing task;with some authors?nding an e?ect of phonological similarity between memory items and the material of the process-ing task,and others?nding no e?ect.In Experiment1, we found that pairwise similarity between a memory item and an item read aloud in the retention interval impaired recall of the memory item.This?nding is in contrast to a previous failure to?nd such an e?ect in a very similar paradigm,using a large sample(Oberauer et al.,2004).One explanation for the discrepancy between these?ndings,and for the ambiguity of?ndings on this question in general,is that the e?ect of phonolog-ical similarity between memory items and distractors used in the processing task is largely mediated through feature overwriting,not through confusion of whole items.Therefore,the e?ect would become noticeable only if the control condition involves very little feature overlap,as was the case in the present Experiment1.

Why should similarity-based confusion within mem-ory lists play a large role in generating recall errors,but be virtually absent between memory items and process-ing material?Confusion between items can only occur when both members of a similar pair are candidates for recall.The large proportion of order errors in serial recall shows that people often know whether an item was part of the memory list even when they forgot its position. Confusions between similar list items come about because both items are known to be elements of the mem-ory list,so they both qualify as candidates for recall.One way of remembering the list items without remembering their order is to activate their representations in long-term memory.Items?guring in the processing task might not enter the competition for being chosen for recall because they are excluded from the candidate set,possi-bly by reducing their activation in long-term memory once they are no longer needed.Young adults with above-average intellectual abilities,such as the psychol-ogy undergraduates that constituted the larger part of our samples,apparently are very e?cient in doing this, whereas individuals with poor reading skills and low working memory capacity seem to be less e?cient in reducing the activation of representations used in the processing task back to baseline(Carretti,Cornoldi, De Beni,&Palladino,2004;De Beni et al.,1998). Feature overwriting

Both experiments yielded strong evidence for feature overwriting.The negative e?ects of overlapping pho-nemes cannot be attributed to similarity-based confu-sion,because the overlap was distributed among several items,such that the pairwise similarity between items was low.Moreover,in Experiment2letters were used to create overlap with words,and no participant ever confused a letter with a word in her or his recall. Therefore,these experiments serve to?rmly establish the existence of feature overwriting in verbal working memory,acting between items within a memory list,as well as between memory contents and the representa-tions involved in a concurrent processing task.

Feature overwriting was?rst postulated as a mecha-nism of interference in the feature model(Nairne,1990; Neath,2000).As it stands,however,the feature model cannot explain our results because it restricts overwrit-ing to the immediately preceding item.In our experi-ments the overlap targets were usually not immediately followed by the overwriting items.Moreover,the feature overlap was distributed among three or four interfering items,such that the one item immediately following the overlap target never produced much overlap on its own. Clearly,a satisfactory explanation of the distributed-overlap e?ect requires an overwriting mechanism that extends beyond the immediately preceding item.Nairne (1990,p.257)anticipated such an extension as a possi-bility within the feature model.

Extended overwriting between all items held concur-rently in working memory is a core assumption of the interference model developed by one of us to account for age di?erences and complexity e?ects in a memory-updating task(Oberauer&Kliegl,2001,2006).In this model,items compete for feature units to represent their overlapping features.The competition is assumed to arise because feature units are bound dynamically to

K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745741

their contexts(e.g.,an item’s serial positions in a list)by ?ring in synchrony with the units representing that con-text,and each feature unit can?re in synchrony with only one context.The present?ndings do not provide direct evidence for that kind of binding mechanism, but they strongly suggest that there is some form of competition between items in working memory for shared features,and binding by synchrony o?ers an explanation for this competition.

If feature overwriting is to be a signi?cant factor in limiting working memory capacity,one might wonder why the e?ect we obtained,although signi?cant,was numerically small,reducing recall accuracy by only about three percentage points.We believe that we underestimated the true size of the overwriting e?ect because we used a rather crude manipulation of feature overlap,simply regarding phonemes as features.There is certainly more to a phonological representation than the composition of phonemes,for instance its syllabic struc-ture and stress pattern.Moreover,phonemes themselves are composed of phonetic features,such that words that share none of their phonemes still share many of the phonetic features.For example,‘‘goat’’and‘‘duke’’would be regarded as having no feature overlap accord-ing to the rules we used,but two pairs of their phonemes (‘‘g’’vs.‘‘k’’,and‘‘t’’vs.‘‘d’’)di?er in only one phonetic feature(voice),implying that they overlap in the major-ity of their phonetic features.Therefore,our baseline of low overlap is likely to still involve a large amount of feature overlap.This assumption also matches our intu-ition that two spoken words that share none of their phonemes still have much more in common than,for instance,a spoken word and a piano chord.A baseline with minimal feature overlap can arguably only be achieved by pairing verbal with non-verbal(e.g., visual-spatial)items—a combination that is known to engender little interference,and sometimes none at all (Cocchini,Logie,Della Sala,MacPherson,&Baddeley, 2002;Hale,Myerson,Emery,Lawrence,&Dufault, 2007).Future experiments should attempt to manipulate feature overlap on the basis of a more?ne-grained anal-ysis of the feature composition of items to obtain more valid quantitative estimates of the e?ect.

A second reason why our e?ect probably underesti-mates the amount of damage done to memory representa-tions by feature overwriting is that repeating the phonemes of a list word has not only negative but also positive e?ects on immediate recall of that word.The posi-tive e?ects arise because phonemes can act as retrieval cues for words that are composed of them.Tehan and Humphreys(1998)demonstrated this e?ect with an exper-iment in which participants memorized two short lists of words,but were instructed to forget the?rst list.Memory for one word in the second list was probed by a category cue(e.g.,‘‘recall the animal’’).If the to-be-forgotten list contained three words,the phonemes of which could be used to create a word?tting the cue(e.g.,using‘‘dart, mop,?g’’to create‘‘dog’’),the word such created was more likely to intrude in recall.This e?ect can be explained by the Parallel-Access-Intersection theory(Tehan, Humphreys,Tolan,&Pitcher,2004):the intruding word ‘‘dog’’lies in the intersection of the set of words cued by the category cue and the set cued by the phonemes in other list items.It is likely that phonemes of other items contrib-ute to retrieval cueing in our experiments as well.In that case we must assume that phonemes of the distractors in our Experiment1,and of the letters in our Experiment 2,colluded as cues for words that can be composed from them.The overwrite target is one such word,whereas the overwrite control words do not receive any cueing from the phonemes in other list items or distractors.The pho-neme-to-word cueing that Tehan and Humphreys(1998) describe therefore would give our overwrite target an edge over their controls.The net negative e?ect of feature over-lap therefore can be interpreted as the result of two oppos-ing forces,a smaller positive e?ect of phoneme-to-word cueing,and a larger negative e?ect of feature overwriting. The observed e?ect of feature overlap thus underestimates the true overwriting e?ect by the size of the phoneme-to-word cueing bene?t.

One question left open by our experiments concerns the direction of feature overwriting.The term‘‘overwrit-ing’’,borrowed from Nairne(1990),suggests a purely ret-roactive process—later representations stealing features from those already in working memory.The mechanism we envision,however,could also be proactive.Proactive ‘‘overwriting’’would occur if a representation already in working memory holds on to the feature units demanded by a new representation of an incoming item,thereby denying them to the newcomer.There is no a priori reason

Table3

Mean proportions of response categories in Experiment2

Overwrite target Overwrite control Migration target Migration control

Correct.67(.14).70(.13).69(.13).66(.13) Order errors(Transpositions).10(.06).10(.06).09(.06).08(.05) Phonological neighbours.027(.018).024(.013).043(.019).044(.022) Other item errors.21(.11).18(.10).19(.09).21(.10)

Note:The sum of each column equals100%of recalled words(letters were not categorized).Neighbours are words that di?er by one phoneme from the correct word in a given list position.

742K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

why later items should have a higher chance of winning the competition for feature units.In the present experi-ments the interfering stimuli were always presented after the overwrite targets,but in both experiments participants could have rehearsed the memory items after they read the interfering stimuli,and therefore,a contribution of proac-tive overwriting cannot be excluded.

Proactive overwriting is an interesting mechanism because it naturally generates a primacy gradient of encoding strength over successive list items,because later list items face an increasing chance that their fea-ture units have already been taken.The steepness of this primacy gradient would depend on the amount of fea-ture overlap of new items with the sum of the preceding items.Thus,proactive overwriting constitutes one way of implementing the‘‘energy-gated encoding’’principle, as hypothesized in the context of the‘‘serial-order in a box’’model of serial recall(Farrell&Lewandowsky, 2002).By this principle,new items are encoded with decreasing strength to the degree that the new item’s similarity to a composite representation of the items already in working memory(i.e.,its‘‘energy’’).This principle has been shown to be important to explain sim-ilarity e?ects in mixed lists of similar and dissimilar items(Farrell,2006;Farrell&Lewandowsky,2003). Feature migration

Our attempt to provide evidence for feature migra-tion within a memory list led to a surprising result:pho-nological neighbors of a target word that can be created by inserting features of other items into the target word improve the recall of that item.This e?ect is probably best explained by the converging contributions of other list items to the activation of the target’s neighbors in long-term memory.Feature migration does not play a role in this explanation,but that does not mean that fea-ture migration does not occur.There is strong evidence that phonological features migrate when people try to remember lists of nonwords in order(Gathercole et al.,2001).With word lists,top-down in?uences from long-term memory help keeping the phonemes of each word together(Je?eries et al.,2006),but it is unlikely that this prevents migrations entirely.In our Experiment 2,the bene?cial e?ect of induced neighbors might simply have outweighed the harmful e?ect of occasional migra-tions of letter features into the migration targets. Against this,we found no evidence that the migration targets were replaced more frequently than their controls by a phonological neighbor.It might be that our manip-ulation was too subtle,requiring migration of a speci?c subset of the phonemes involved in the list over a fairly large distance,and to intrude in the migration target in just the right place to generate the induced neighbor. Probably a more drastic manipulation than ours,for instance the use of Spoonerisms(Page et al.,2007),is required to produce errors from feature migration to any signi?cant extend in healthy young adults. Conclusion

Besides similarity-based confusion,at least one fur-ther mechanism,feature overwriting,contributes to interference in working memory.Feature overwriting presupposes distributed representations of items,and therefore this?nding has strong implications for models of working memory.Models using localist representa-tions of items in working memory,such as the network model of Burgess and Hitch(1999),Burgess and Hitch (2006),the primacy model(Page&Norris,1998),and the start-end model(Henson,1998),will have di?culty with explaining the feature overlap e?ect.Models using distributed representations,such as the feature model (Nairne,1990)and SOB(Farrell&Lewandowsky, 2002)are better suited to handle e?ects on the feature level.The details of these models,however,are as yet insu?cient to explain the present?ndings:The feature model assumes overwriting only of the immediately pre-ceding item,and SOB assumes no retroactive overwrit-ing of features at all.The interference model from which we derived the prediction of feature overwriting (Oberauer&Kliegl,2006)is not yet developed to a level of detail that it can replace existing computational mod-els.One task for future theorizing on working memory is to build a model that uses distributed representations of items and incorporates mechanisms of similarity-based interference,feature overwriting,and possibly also fea-ture migration.

References

Allen,R.,&Hulme,C.(2006).Speech and language processing mechanisms in verbal serial recall.Journal of Memory and Language,55,64–88.

Brown,G.D.A.,Preece,T.,&Hulme,C.(2000).Oscillator-based memory for serial order.Psychological Review,107, 127–181.

Burgess,N.,&Hitch,G.J.(1999).Memory for serial order:A network model of the phonological loop and its timing.

Psychological Review,106,551–581.

Burgess,N.,&Hitch,G.J.(2006).A revised model of short-term memory and long-term learning of verbal sequences.

Journal of Memory and Language,55,627–652.

Carretti,B.,Cornoldi,C.,De Beni,R.,&Palladino,P.(2004).

What happens to information to be suppressed in working memory tasks?Short and long term e?ects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A,1059–1084. Chiappe,P.,Hasher,L.,&Siegel,L.S.(2000).Working memory,inhibitory control and reading disability.Memory &Cognition,28,8–17.

Cocchini,G.,Logie,R.H.,Della Sala,S.,MacPherson,S.

E.,&Baddeley,A.D.(2002).Concurrent performance

K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745743

of two memory tasks:Evidence for domain-speci?c working memory systems.Memory&Cognition,30, 1086–1095.

Conway,A.R.A.,Kane,M.J.,Bunting,M.F.,Hambrick,D.

Z.,Wilhelm,O.,&Engle,R.W.(2005).Working memory span tasks:A methodological review and user’s guide.

Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,12,769–786.

Davis,C.J.(2005).N-watch:A program for deriving neigh-borhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics.Behavior Research Methods,37,65–70.

De Beni,R.,Palladino,P.,Pazzaglia,P.,&Cornoldi,C.(1998).

Increases in intrusion errors and working memory de?cit of poor comprehenders.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A,305–320.

Drewnowski, A.,&Murdock, B. B.(1980).The role of auditory features in memory span for words.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cogni-tion,6,319–332.

Fallon,A.B.,Groves,K.,&Tehan,G.(1999).Phonological similarity and trace degradation in the serial recall task: When CAT helps RAT,but not MAN.International Journal of Psychology,34,301–307(Special Issue:Short-Term/ Working Memory).

Farrell,S.(2006).Mixed-list phonological similarity e?ects in delayed serial recall.Journal of Memory and Language,56, 587–600.

Farrell,S.,&Lewandowsky,S.(2002).An endogenous distributed model of ordering in serial recall.Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,9,59–79.

Farrell,S.,&Lewandowsky,S.(2003).Dissimilar items bene?t from phonological similarity in serial recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cogni-tion,29,838–849.

Gathercole,S.E.,Pickering,S.J.,Hall,M.,&Peaker,S.M.

(2001).Dissociable lexical and phonological in?uences on serial recognition and serial recall.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A,1–30.

Graf,R.,Braun,M.,Jacobs,A.M.,&Hellbru¨ck,J.(2002).

Language processing and short-term memory.The gradual phonological similarity e?ect and irrelevant speech.Psycho-logische Beitra¨ge,44,203–222.

Hale,S.,Myerson,J.,Emery,L.J.,Lawrence, B.M.,& Dufault,C.(2007).Variations in working memory across the life span.In A.R. A.Conway, C.Jarrold,M.J.

Kane, A.Miyake,&J.N.Towse(Eds.),Variation in working memory(pp.194–224).New York:Oxford University Press.

Hanley,J.R.,&Bakopoulou,E.(2003).Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression,and phonological similarity:A test of the phonological loop model and the feature model.

Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,10,435–444.

Henson,R.N.A.(1998).Short-term memory for serial order: The Start-End Model.Cognitive Psychology,36,73–137. Henson,R.N. A.,Norris, D.G.,Page,M.P. A.,& Baddeley, A. D.(1996).Unchained memory:Error patterns rule out chaining models of immediate serial recall.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 80–115.

Hummel,J.E.,&Holyoak,K.J.(1997).Distributed represen-tations of structure:A theory of analogical access and mapping.Psychological Review,104,427–466.Je?eries,E.,Frankish,C.,&Lambon Ralph,M.A.(2006).

Lexical and semantic binding in verbal short-term memory.

Journal of Memory and Language,54,81–98.

Just,M.A.,&Carpenter,P.A.(1992).A capacity theory of comprehension:Individual di?erences in working memory.

Psychological Review,99,122–149.

Kane,M.J.,Bleckley,M.K.,Conway,A.R.A.,&Engle,R.

W.(2001).A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,130, 169–183.

Karlsen,P.J.,&Lian,A.(2005).Modulating the phonological similarity e?ect:The contribution of interlist similarity and lexicality.Memory&Cognition,33,542–556.

Lange,E.B.,&Oberauer,K.(2005).Overwriting of phonemic features in serial recall.Memory,13,333–339.

Lee, C.L.,&Estes,W.K.(1977).Order and position in primary memory for letter strings.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,16,395–418.

McCabe,J.,&Hartman,M.(2003).Examining the locus of age e?ects on complex span tasks.Psychology and Aging,18, 562–572.

Nairne,J.S.(1990).A feature model of immediate memory.

Memory&Cognition,18,251–269.

Neath,I.(2000).Modeling the e?ects of irrelevant speech on memory.Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,7,403–423. Nimmo,L.M.,&Roodenrys,S.(2004).Investigating the phonological similarity e?ect:Syllable structure and the position of common phonemes.Journal of Memory and Language,50,245–258.

Oberauer,K.,&Kliegl,R.(2001).Beyond resources:Formal models of complexity e?ects and age di?erences in working memory.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,13, 187–215.

Oberauer,K.,&Kliegl,R.(2006).A formal model of capacity limits in working memory.Journal of Memory and Lan-guage,55,601–626.

Oberauer,K.,Lange,E.,&Engle,R.W.(2004).Working memory capacity and resistance to interference.Journal of Memory and Language,51,80–96.

Page,M.P.A.,Madge,A.,Cumming,N.,&Norris,D.(2007).

Speech errors and the phonological similarity e?ect in short-term memory:Evidence suggesting a common locus.Journal of Memory and Language,56,49–64.

Page,M.P.A.,&Norris,D.(1998).The primacy model:A new model of immediate serial recall.Psychological Review,105, 761–781.

Ra?one,A.,&Wolters,G.(2001).A cortical mechanism for binding in visual working memory.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,13,766–785.

Reinitz,M.T.,&Hannigan,S.L.(2004).False memories for compound words:Role of working memory.Memory& Cognition,32,463–473.

Reinitz,M.T.,Lammers,W.J.,&Cochran,B.P.(1992).

Memory-conjunction errors:Miscombination of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory.Memory &Cognition,20,1–11.

Roodenrys,S.,Hulme, C.,Lethbridge, A.,Hinton,M.,& Nimmo,L.M.(2002).Word-frequency and phonological-neighborhood e?ects on verbal short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cog-nition,28,1019–1034.

744K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745

Saito,S.,&Miyake, A.(2004).An evaluation of the task switching account of working memory span scores:Evi-dence against a temporal decay assumption.Journal of Memory and Language,50,425–443.

Shastri,L.,&Ajjanagadde,V.(1993).From simple associations to systematic reasoning:A connectionist representation of rules,variables and dynamic bindings using temporal syn-chrony.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,16,417–494. Tehan,G.,&Humphreys,M.S.(1998).Creating proactive interference in immediate recall:Building a DOG from a DART,a MOP,and a FIG.Memory&Cognition,26,477–489.Tehan,G.,Humphreys,M.S.,Tolan,G.,&Pitcher,C.(2004).

The role of context in producing item interactions and false memories.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory,and Cognition,30,107–119.

Thorn, A.S. C.,&Frankish, C.R.(2005).Long-term knowledge e?ects on serial recall of nonwords are not exclusively lexical.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory,and Cognition,31,729–735. Wickelgren,W.A.(1965).Acoustic similarity and retroactive interference in short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,4,53–61.

K.Oberauer,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b712882326.html,nge/Journal of Memory and Language58(2008)730–745745

中文书信格式范文

竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除 中文书信格式范文 篇一：20XX中文书信格式范文 20XX中文书信格式范文 第1篇：自我推荐信范文 敬的领导： 您好！ 当您翻开这一页的时候，您已经为我打开了通往成功的第一扇大门。感谢您能在我即将踏上人生又一崭新征程的时候，给我一次宝贵的机会。希望它不同于您手中若干份雷同的求职材料，并能有助您在激烈的市场竞争与知识经济的大潮中录求到综合型人才。 我叫尤雅，是连云港市财经学校会计专业一名学生，在毕业既将之时，欣闻贵单位欲招兵买马，求贤纳才，故毛遂自荐，以表达我希望与您协商以进一步了解贵单位和加盟贵单位的愿望。在此首先感谢您在百忙之中亲阅我的自荐书，如蒙赏识，我将用我的学识和能力，为贵单位忠心效劳。 这一本薄薄的自荐书是我中专三年生活全面而真实的

写照。我的大学生活充实着我奋斗的足迹，我不敢说我是最好的，但至少我能把握每一个机会，分秒必争。我觉得作为一名中专生，素质和能力的最重要的。因此，中专三年中我一直以不断地提高自身的素质和能力作为奋斗的目标。除了努力学好本专业的课程之外，我还充分地利用课余的时间积极拓展自己的课余活动空间，努力提高自己的动手实践、理论知识、人际交往等各方面的能力，提高自身的品德修养，增强体魄和增长阅历。首先，在思想方面，我严格按照学生行为规范要求自己，培养健康向上的生活情操，并积极学习马列主义。毛泽东思想，向党组织靠拢。其次，学习方面，养成多钻研，多动手的主动性自觉学习习惯，在学校安排的课程和学习实习中都取得了较好的成绩。我的课余生活也十分丰富，参加过轻工俭学和青年志愿者的活动等，我还积极参加体育锻炼，来保持自己的身体健康和良好心态。虽然我没有担任班干部，但我深刻认识到只有进入到社会才能真正的锻炼自己。因此我多次利用假期参加了社会实践活动，以更好的了解和认识社会。通过社会实践，自己的交际能力，独立工作能力，组织能力和团结协作能力都得到了应有的提高！ 三载匆匆，现在的我深深懂得：昨天的成绩已成为历史，未来的辉煌要靠今天脚踏实地坚持不懈地努力去实现。在这斑斓多彩日新月异的时代，只有培养能力、提高素质、挖掘

产品使用说明书编写模板

使用说明书模板 根据所需改写即可 远程抄表能源管理系统 使用说明书 XXXXXXXX XXXX 年XX 月 文档控制 修改记录 * 修改类型分为A一Added M—Mod辻ied D—Deleted 审阅人 存档 目录 1醞

1.1背景 1.2应用领域与使用对象 1.4参考资料 1.5术语与缩耳解释 2系统综述 2.1系统结构 2.2系统功能简介 2.3性能 2.4版权声明 3运行环境 3.1硕件设备要求 3.2支持软件 3.3数据结构 4系统操作说明 4.1安装与初始化 4.2子模块名称1 4.2. 1业务需求描述 4. 2. 2界面截屏以及界面字段解释 4. 2. 3操作说明 4. 3子模块名称2 4. 3. 1业务需求描述 4. 3. 2界面截屏以及界面字段解释 4.4出错处理和恢复 4. 3. 3操作说明

1概述

1?1背景 系统的开发背景和编写这个手册的U的。 1.2应用领域与使用对象 描述软件所能使用的领域以及使用对象等。 1.4参考资料 列出有关资料的作者、标题、编号、发表日期、岀版单位或资料来源，可包括 与该产品有关的已发表的资料 文档中所引用的资料，所采用的软件标准或规范或业务规则 列岀编写本说明书时查阅的Internet上杂志、专业著作、技术标准以及他们的网址 1?3术语与缩写解释 2系统综述 4.4出错处理和恢复

2.1系统结构 结合系统所具有的功能包括输入、处理和输出提供该软件的总体结构图表。 2.2系统功能简介 结合本软件的开发实际逐项地说明本软件所有具有各项功能。 2.3性能 给出一般情况下的运行性能指数等。 2.4版权声明 声明版权所有者以及盗版应承当的法律责任。 3运行环境 3.1硬件设备要求 列出本软件所要求的硬设备的最小配置，如： 1、处理器的型号、内存、硬盘容量； 2、所要求的外存储器、媒体、记录格式、设备的型号和台数、联机/脱机; 3、I/O设备（联机/脱机）； 4、数据传输设备和转换设备的型号、台数。 3. 2支持软件

软件使用说明书模板

中小微企业进销存信息 管理软件 软 件 使 用 说 明 书 Version 1.0

目录 1 概述 (1) 1.1 系统简介 (1) 1.2 系统运行环境 (1) 1.3 说明 (1) 2 软件安装与配置 (3) 2.1 客户端的安装与配置 (3) 2.2 MySQL 5.5的安装与配置 (5) 2.3 配置数据库 (11) 3 软件功能介绍与使用说明 (13) 3.1 系统管理 (13) 3.2.1 用户管理 (14) 3.2.2 数据字典 (15) 3.3 基础信息管理 (16) 3.3.1 客户信息管理 (16) 3.3.2 供应商信息管理 (18) 3.3.3 商品信息管理 (19) 3.4 采购管理 (20) 3.4.1 采购订单管理 (20) 3.5 销售管理 (22) 3.5.1 销售订单管理 (22) 3.6 库存管理 (23) 3.6.1 库存盘点 (23) 3.7 查询统计 (24) 3.7.1 客户信息查询 (25) 3.7.2 供应商信息查询 (25) 3.7.3 商品信息查询 (26) 3.7.4 采购信息查询 (27) 3.7.5 销售信息查询 (27) 3.7.6 库存查询 (28) 4 相关说明 (29) 4.1 开发环境 (29) 4.2 测试环境 (29)

1 概述 1.1 系统简介 中小微企业进销存信息管理软件主要是针对生产经营活动单一、资金周转速度快、计算机水平低为特点的中小微企业而建立的，旨在提高中小微企业的信息化水平、规生产经营流程、提高企业资源的利用率、全面掌握企业运营情况，从而为企业决策提供支持。 该软件根据企业的采购（进）、销售（销售）、存货管理（存）等业务流程进行设计，通过提取采购和销售的数据流，实现对企业业务信息的整理、加工、存储与分析，从而实现资源的有效配置与监管。 1.2 系统运行环境 该系统的运行需要以下软硬件环境： 1.3 说明 （1）、授权 『中小微企业进销存信息管理软件』授权您在非盈利的前提下安装使用本『软件产品』，并保留随时向您收回授权的权力。 （2）、限制 禁止将本『软件产品』之拷贝以盈利为目的传播于他人。您不得对本

信的格式

篇一：书信的格式 信封的格式： 书信的格式： （顶格写）亲爱的（或敬爱的）xxx: （空两格写）您（或你）好！（可以加上见信祝你身体健康······）（空两格写) 正文（顶格写）此致 敬礼 或（空两格写）祝福语 右下角写姓名日期 例： 敬爱的老师: 您好! 时光飞逝,转眼间我们升入了5年级,在这硕果累累的金秋时节,我们踏着醉人的花香,迎来了第21个教师节. 当无知的我们走进实验小学的大门,我们看见了您慈祥的面孔.是您领我们学会了加,减,乘,除.也是您领我们走进知识的大门,把知识宝库的金钥匙交到我们手中,让我们去努力,去发现,去探索；也许在什么时候,我们幼稚的话语可能伤害过您,可是您仍把我们当做您的一个个调皮的孩子. 没有阳光就没有花朵,而没有教师哪会有诗人,文学家,作家,哪会有举世闻名的歌德巴赫猜想! 多少次,我们看见您在认真的批改作业,您在细细凝视,一行行,一页页.在您没看完前您不肯离去.因为您知道那是孩子们的翅膀和台阶.这时当我们看见您,我们多想递上一杯清凉的茶,说一句:老师,您辛苦了!有人说,老师是园丁,培育除一代又一代的人才,我觉得这话没错,您就是园丁,我们是春天里的幼苗,茁壮的绿叶上有您的汗珠,鲜艳的花朵上有您的微笑!不管您有多忙多累,您始终精神饱满的出现在我们面前,为我们讲授知识.您为我们的成长付出了多少心血,牺牲了多少个良宵啊.您额头的皱纹刻下了千丝万缕的慈爱;您鬓边的白发记载着长年累月的辛劳.就像我们不会忘记有养育之恩的父母一样,也不会忘记您----我们的启蒙恩师。 写到这,我们要对您说一句,老师,您是我们心中永远的天使! 祝您 节日快乐,身体健康！永远年轻,桃李满天下! 全班同学敬上 2005年9月10日 篇二：书信格式范文 书信格式范文 78天前栏目:散文,15999人读过 tag:书信书信格式书信范文书信格式范文中文书信格式中文书信 书信在人类的交流与沟通的历史上占有重要地位。在手机，电话与电脑这些简单快捷的交流工具遍布全球的今天，仍有一部分人情愿使用书信来互通信息。 书信格式 例文 ①称呼：顶格，有的还可以加上一定的限定、修饰词，如亲爱的等。 ②问候语：如写“你好”、“近来身体是否安康”等。独立成段，不可直接接下文。否则，就会违反构段意义单一的要求，变成多义段了。 ③正文。这是信的主体，可以分为若干段来书写。

软件使用说明范文

(仅供内部使用) 文档作者：_____________________ 日期：___/___/___ 说明书校对：_____________________ 日期：___/___/___ 产品经理：_____________________ 日期：___/___/___ 请在这里输入公司名称 版权所有不得复制

1引言 1 .1编写目的 编写本使用说明的目的是充分叙述本软件所能实现的功能及其运行环境，以便使用者了解本软件的使用范围和使用方法，并为软件的维护和更新提供必要的信息。 1 .2参考资料 略 1 .3术语和缩写词 略 2 软件概述 2 .1软件用途 本软件的开发是为具有电能质量仪表，可以获取电能数据的技术人员提供一个有利的分析工具。 2 .2软件运行 本软件运行在PC 及其兼容机上，使用WINDOWS 操作系统，在软件安装后，直接点击相应图标，就可以显示出软件的主菜单，进行需要的软件操作。 2 .3系统配置 本软件要求在PC 及其兼容机上运行，要求奔腾II以上CPU，64兆以上内存，10G 以上硬盘。软件需要有WINDOWS 98 操作系统环境。 2 .4软件结构 略 2 .5软件性能 略 2 .6输入、处理、输出 2 .6.1输入 略 2 .6.2处理 略 2 .6.3输出 分析数据为： 略

图表有： 略 3 软件使用过程 3 .1软件安装 直接点击软件的安装软件SETUP.EXE ；然后按照软件的提示进行。 3 .2运行表 略 3 .3运行步骤 略 3 .4运行说明 略 3 .4.1控制输入 按照软件的说明，将测试数据加入到软件中；具体过程如下： 略 3 .4.2管理信息 软件运行过程中的密码键入： 略 3 .4.3输入输出文件 略 3 .4.4输出报告 略 3 .4.5输出报告复制 略 3 .4.6再启动及恢复过程 略 3 .5出错处理 软件运行过程中可能雏形的出物及处理如下： 略 3 .6非常规过程 如果出现不可能处理的问题，可以直接与公司的技术支持人员联系：略

2017软件使用说明书样本.doc

韦氏盈创仓库管理系统 V1.0 用户手册 厦门韦氏盈创科技有限公司-版权所有

目录 1引言 (1) 1.1编写目的 (1) 1.2参考资料 (1) 1.3术语和缩略词 (1) 2软件概述 (2) 2.1软件功能 (2) 2.2软件运行 (2) 2.3系统要求 (2) 3系统使用 (3) 3.1系统登录 (3) 3.2人员信息维护 (4) 3.2.1个人密码修改 (4) 3.2.2权限设置 (5) 3.2.3添加新成员 (6) 3.2.4人员信息浏览 (6) 3.3货品信息维护 (7) 3.3.1货品信息查询 (7) 3.3.2货品信息增加 (8) 3.3.3货品信息删改 (9) 3.4仓库信息维护 (9) 3.4.1仓库信息浏览 (10) 3.4.2仓库信息添加 (10) 3.5存放规则维护 (11) 3.5.1存放规则浏览 (11) 3.5.2添加存放规则 (12) 3.6货物进出记录 (12) 3.6.1货物进出浏览 (13) 3.6.2货物进出添加 (13) 3.7库存信息 (14) 3.8系统功能 (14)

1引言 1.1编写目的 韦氏盈创仓库管理系统是一个公司工作中不可缺少的一部分，他对于公司的人员以及财务的管理者和被管理者都非常重要。所以仓库管理系统应该为管理者和被管理者提供充足的信息和快捷的数据处理手段，但长期以来，人们使用传统的人工方式或性能较低的仓库管理系统来管理公司日常事务，操作流程比较繁琐，错误率比较高。一个成功的管理系统应提供快速的信息检索功能，增加和修改功能。 1.2参考资料 《软件需求规格说明书》 《概要设计说明书》 《详细设计说明书》 1.3术语和缩略词 A.I. 人工智能 API (Application Programming Interface) 应用(程序)编程接口Software Quality Assurance软件质量保证 UI Testing界面测试

中文书信标准格式

楼层: 1 中文书信标准格式 ①称呼：顶格，有的还可以加上一定的限定、修饰词，如亲爱的等。 ②问候语：如写“你好”、“近来身体是否安康”等。独立成段，不可直接接下文。否则，就会违反构段 意义单一的要求，变成多义段了。 ③正文。这是信的主体，可以分为若干段来书写。 ④祝颂语。以最一般的“此致”、“敬礼”为例。“此致”可以有两种正确的位置来进行书写，一是紧接着主体正文之后，不另起段，不加标点；二是在正文之下另起一行空两格书写。“敬礼”写在“此致”的下一行，顶格书写。后应该加上一个惊叹号，以表示祝颂的诚意和强度。 称呼和祝颂语后半部分的顶格，是对收信人的一种尊重。是古代书信“抬头”传统的延续。古人书信为竖写，行文涉及对方收信人姓名或称呼，为了表示尊重，不论书写到何处，都要把对方的姓名或称呼提到下一行的顶头书写。它的基本做法，为现代书信所吸收。 ⑤具名和日期。写信人的姓名或名字，写在祝颂语下方空一至二行的右侧。最好还要在写信人姓名之 前写上与收信人的关系，如儿×××、父×××、你的朋友×××等。再下一行写日期。 如果忘了写某事，则可以在日期下空一行、再空两格写上“又附”，再另起行书写未尽事宜。 回答者：xp0285 - 初入江湖二级 2-28 10:30 提问者对于答案的评价： 谢谢i 您觉得最佳答案好不好？目前有 0 个人评价 50% （0）

50% （0） 其他回答共 2 条 ................... 期待您的回信! 此致 敬礼 某某某 回答者：wangweibin1018 - 助理二级 2-28 10:29 中文书信的格式 信封 左上方填写邮编及收信人地址；信封中间居中写收信人姓名，加上称呼。它可以是写信人对收信人的称呼，也可以是邮递员对收信人的称呼。后者为王力先生的观点，实际上邮递员只认为是写信人对收信人的称呼。收信人后面没有称呼是不礼貌的，属于格式上的错误。信封右下方为寄信人地址及邮编。 正文 ①称呼：顶格，有的还可以加上一定的限定、修饰词，如亲爱的等。 ②问候语：如写“你好”、“近来身体是否安康”等。独立成段，不可直接接下文。否则，就会违反构段 意义单一的要求，变成多义段了。 ③正文。这是信的主体，可以分为若干段来书写。

bec email memo 格式范文

13th December Dear Sir or Madam With regard to your concerns about the experience on the 1st December, I have now spoken to the servers and as a result I’m in a position to respond. Unfortunately, the operator who should be on duty at that day ate a plate of bad spaghetti for the dinner, and he was about to go to toilet when you made the booking. So he didn’t write down the information carefully, which made the desk clerk can’t find your booking record and the double-booking. I have reprimanded him severely and gave the punishment. The towels in the bathroom needn’t to change due to the disinfection cabinet in every room just at the corner in the bathroom. The cabinet can clean the towels automatically and immediately as long as you put the towels in it. This is a special device in our hotel. Following this letter, I’d like to suggest that we’ll give you 60% discount of your next coming. Let me express my sincere apology. Y our sincerely Jack Manager of the hotel

书信的格式

篇一：书信格式范文 书信格式范文 78天前栏目:散文,15999人读过 tag:书信书信格式书信范文书信格式范文中文书信格式中文书信 书信在人类的交流与沟通的历史上占有重要地位。在手机，电话与电脑这些简单快捷的交流工具遍布全球的今天，仍有一部分人情愿使用书信来互通信息。 书信格式 例文 ①称呼：顶格，有的还可以加上一定的限定、修饰词，如亲爱的等。 ②问候语：如写“你好”、“近来身体是否安康”等。独立成段，不可直接接下文。否则，就会违反构段意义单一的要求，变成多义段了。 ③正文。这是信的主体，可以分为若干段来书写。 ④祝颂语。以最一般的“此致”、“敬礼”为例。“此致”可以有两种正确的位置来进行书写，一是紧接着主体正文之后，不另起段，不加标点；二是在正文之下另起一行空两格书写。“敬礼”写在“此致”的下一行，顶格书写。后应该加上一个惊叹号，以表示祝颂的诚意和强度。 称呼和祝颂语后半部分的顶格，是对收信人的一种尊重。是古代书信“抬头”传统的延续。古人书信为竖写，行文涉及对方收信人姓名或称呼，为了表示尊重，不论书写到何处，都要把对方的姓名或称呼提到下一行的顶头书写。它的基本做法，为现代书信所吸收。 ⑤署名和日期。写信人的姓名或名字，写在祝颂语下方空一至二行的右侧。最好还要在写信人姓名之前写上与收信人的关系，如儿×××、父×××、你的朋友×××等。再下一行写日期。 如果忘了写某事，则可以在日期下空一行、再空两格写上“又附”，再另起行书写未尽事宜。书信格式范文：给老师的一封信 尊敬的黎老师： 您好! 时间过得真快啊!一转眼，一个学期又快结束了。通过这一个学期和您的接触，我对您又有了更深入的了解。您是我最最崇拜的老师，您在我心目中留下了很好的印象：上课时，课文内容讲得很深入、很透彻。办事情认真到位，能够根据学生的特点来进行教育。不过，在这些优点中，我觉得您最突出的优点还是上课上得好。 您平时在教课文时，总是让我们推敲每个字的深层意思。上课绝不会只是了解表面意思。您善于引导我们从课文的各个角度去探究，调动起同学们的学习积极性，让我们“更上一层楼”。例如，有一次您给我们上第10课《月光曲》中的第6自然段，您从盲姑娘的一句话中推敲出了“这位穷苦的盲姑娘，不仅热爱音乐，还能从音乐中听出弹琴的人就是贝多芬。所以，贝多芬认为他遇到了知音”。除了上课这方面，还有您给我们布置的作业并不多，而且光是背和读就占了大部分，但每一题都很重要，都能够调动我们的思维。您很少布置大量“手工劳动”和“重复劳动”的作业，你所关注的重点都是“怎样以最少的时间，完成最多的任务”。 你做事情也是按照这个准则来执行的。这也许跟您的性格有很大的关系，您做事情都是赶前不赶后，比如说，改作文这一方面，53篇习作，您很快就能改完，而且每一篇习作还加以详细的点评，一些错别字也逃不过您的眼睛。而改考卷您就更快了，今天下午考完，明天上午就能改出来，真是“神速”。 至于您是如何根据学生特点来进行教育，我想首先是您在上课的时候，对一些简单的问题，您一般都会叫那些学习不太好的同学来回答，而对于比较难的问题，您总是留给学习较好的同学来

商务英语便函的写作方式memo格式

商务英语便函的写作方式memo格式 memo多用于公司内部，通常是个人写给个人或者个人写给整个公司或者部门。下面是小编整理的商务英语便函memo的写作方式，以供大家学习参考。 商务英语memo写作方式例子：Pearson Co.Ltd MEMO To: John Carter, Regional Sales Manager From: Mary Walden, National Sales Director Date: 29 March 2004 Subject: Annual Sales Conference This years Annual Sales Conferences will take place in our London Branch from 3 April to 8 April. Please book your flight in advance and we will meet all your expense during your stay there. (今年的年度销售大会将于4月3日至4月8日在我们伦敦分公司举行。请提前预定航班。您在此期间的所有开支将由我们支付。) 通过上面的列子可以看出memo 通常包含一下几个部分： 商务英语memo写作格式：公司名称： 收函人姓名(和职务)To： 留言人姓名(和职务)From： 留言日期Date：

便函主题Subject： 正文： a.公司名称：因为大部分memo都是用专门的公司用纸书写，因此上面会有公司的名称，电话等。如果没有你可以把它们打印出来。 b.To:指这个memo是写给谁的。 c.From:指这个memo是谁写的。 d.Date:指的是写这个memo时的日期。日期按照影视英语的写法要先写日子，然后是月份和年。这里需要注意月份的英语单词应该是拼写出来。在较为正式的场合下，月份通常不用阿拉伯数字，也不能缩写形式。 e.Subject:指的是主题，即这个memo主要是说哪方面的事情。这个单词可以缩写为Sub。主题有时候也可以用Re:来表示。Re是regarding 的缩写，即这个memo是关于什么内容的，也就是主题，它就等于subject。 f.正文：即这个memo的具体内容。 商务英语memo写作方式：几个问题 1. 这个memo是谁写的?她的职务是什么? 2. 这个memo是写给谁的?他的职务是什么? 3.指这个memo是什么时候写的? 请写出年月日。 4.这个memo的主题是什么? 答案： 1.这个memo是Mary Walden 写的，她的职务是全国销售总

软件著作权说明书模板-

说明书，要求： 1、截图要完整，要看得到右上角“关闭”窗口按钮。最好有登录界面、主界面等 2、图中显示的软件名称、版本号要和申请表里的内容一致，如果截图上有公司名字，要和变更后的公司新名称保持一致。 3、程序量在1万行以上的，用户手册不至少20页；低于10000行，不少于10页。 生产加工优化节料 管理系统 （使用说明书） 目录 一引言.................................................. 编写目的............................................. 背景................................................. 参考资料............................................. 二用途................................................. 功能................................................. 性能................................................. 安全保密.............................................. 三运行环境.............................................. 硬件设备.............................................. 支持软件.............................................. 四使用过程..............................................

书信标准模板

竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除 书信标准模板 篇一：书信格式 英文信件格式 1.信封(envelop) 与中文信封相反，英文信封上收信人的地址和姓名写在信封的中间，发信人的地址和姓名写在信封的左上角，或信封背面。 英文书信的地址应从小写到大，先写门牌号码，再写街道、城镇、省或州及邮政编码，最后是国家名称。国家名称的每一个字母都要大写。 2.信头/个人信头(letterhead/personalletterhead) 公司信纸上方居中一般都印有其名称、地址和联系号码，这就是通常所说的信头。在没有信头的普通信纸上写信，作者就需要写明回邮地址和联系号码。 3.封内日期(dateline) 封内日期是写信或打字时的日期。封内日期写在信头或作者地址的下两行。 4.封内地址(insideaddress)

封内地址是收信人的地址，包括姓名，职务(如适用)，公司名称(如适用)，街道名称或信箱号，城市，州或省，邮政编码和国家。封内地址通常写在左手边，在日期线和称呼之间。 5.称呼(salutation) 称呼是一封信开头对收信人的称呼，写在封内地址或提示句下两三行。称呼后可以写冒 号或逗号。在商业信函或其他正式书信中，用冒号。 在非正式书信中，称呼后用逗号。(注意：尽量避免使用“towhomitmayconcern”或“dearsirormadam”,因为这种称呼已经过时，并且不很友好。改进方法是争取确定收信人的姓名，或使用“dearhumanResourcesmanager”，“dearFriends”这样的称呼。在给律师或外交领事写信时，可以使用“esquire”或“esq.”这样的头衔，但它们不应出现在称呼中。同样，如果收信人的姓名后面有“jr.”或“sr.”，如“georgebush,jr.”也不能把它们包含在称呼中。) 6.头衔(titles) 除非写信人与收信人熟到可以直呼其名，通常要在收信人名字前加上“mr.”，“professor”等表示礼貌的头衔。 7.提示句(选择性)attentionline(optional) 提示句的用途是指明把信送给某个具体的人或部门处理，尽管信是写给这个组织的。另外，在指明的收信人不在

软件产品使用说明书格式

客户商机信息管理系统 使用说明书 北京阳光伟业科技发展有限公司 2010年5月 文档控制 修改记录

* 修改类型分为A—Added M—Modified D—Deleted 审阅人 存档

目录 1概述 (4) 1.1背景 (4) 1.2应用领域与使用对象 (4) 1.4参考资料 (4) 1.5术语与缩写解释 (4) 2系统综述 (5) 2.1系统结构 (5) 2.2系统功能简介 (5) 2.3性能 (5) 2.4版权声明 (5) 3运行环境 (5) 3.1硬件设备要求 (5) 3.2支持软件 (5) 3.3数据结构 (6) 4系统操作说明 (6) 4.1安装与初始化 (6) 4.2子模块名称1 (6) 4.2.1业务需求描述 (6) 4.2.2界面截屏以及界面字段解释 (6) 4.2.3操作说明 (6) 4.3子模块名称2 (6) 4.3.1业务需求描述 (6) 4.3.2界面截屏以及界面字段解释 (7) 4.3.3操作说明 (7) 4.4出错处理和恢复............................................................................... 错误！未定义书签。

1概述 1.1背景 为满足新北海信息科技有限公司内部总经理和总监对部门经理和客户经理的工作信息进行监督和反馈，同时能及时抓住有用的商机客户，避免商机资源的流失。 1.2应用领域与使用对象 新北海信息科技有限公司内部总监、总经理、部门经理、客户经理。 1.4参考资料 列出有关资料的作者、标题、编号、发表日期、出版单位或资料来源，可包括 与该产品有关的已发表的资料 1.5术语与缩写解释

中文传统书信规范

中文传统书信写作规范 一、提称语 称谓后一般附提称语，此格式一般用于文言书信，如，运使学士阁下(王安石《上杜学士言开河书》)、虹生十四兄亲家年大人情右(龚自珍《与吴虹生书》)；再如，某公道席、某先生台鉴、母氏慈鉴、贤弟如晤等。现将常见提称语列表如下： （一）一般称谓 1.足下：古代最初用为下对上的敬称，后来书信中多用于同辈之间。 2.膝下：旧时子女致父母的信，多以“父母亲大人膝下”起首。人幼时常依于父母膝旁，家书中用“膝下”，既表敬重，又示出对父母的亲爱、眷依之情。 （二）鉴 即古代镜子，有审察的意思。用作书信提称语，就是请阅看的客气说法。 1．垂鉴：含居高临下之义。 2．赐鉴：上给予下叫做赐。 3．钧鉴：古以钩陶喻国政，后称宦官多冠以钧宇。 垂鉴、赐鉴、钧鉴，多用于对上、致年高德韶者的信中。尊 4．尊鉴：可用于尊长，也可用乎辈。 5．台鉴：适用较广，“台”有“高”义，对熟识或不熟识的尊长、平辈，皆可使用。 6．勋鉴：对身居高佼、有功勋业绩者，可用。 7．道鉴：对道德君子、望重学者，可称。 8．大鉴、英鉴、伟鉴、雅鉴：含高尚、美好、不凡、不俗的意义，宜用于友朋往来书信。 9．惠鉴：就是赏阅的意思，但语意分量较“赐鉴”为轻，适用于一般书信，师长对已独立的后辈学子，也可用此客套。 10．慈鉴：致母亲，可称。 11．爱鉴：夫妻，或情意亲密的男女之间，可用。 12．双鉴：给友朋夫妇二人之信。 13．芳鉴：女子间往来书信。 14．礼鉴：给居丧者信。 15．公鉴、共鉴、同鉴：用于致团体或多人的信函，可于所列人名之后，书“诸先生共鉴”等。 （三）席 即席位。

1．道席：多用为学生对师长的尊称。 2．讲席、教席：也是对从事教育、讲学者的敬称，但用于平辈间，写信人与受信人不必有师生关系。 3．撰席、著席、史席：都用作对文士的敬称，文人间也常互用。撰，即著述。史，指有著作传世垂史。览阅知悉一般用于长对幼、前辈对晚辈的称呼之后。 二、启辞 启辞，就是信文的开场白，或寒暄客套，或提示写信原委等。启辞理应属于信件正文的一部分，由于旧时尺牍中，这部分形成了一系列的套语，在现时书信中还常可以看到，所以将此单独提出：（一）表示写信人以诚恳的态度，请收信人阅读信文。 1．敬禀者、跪禀者、即禀者：写信人自称是恭敬地禀陈事情的人，表示下面是所要禀告的话，用于致父母尊长的信，如“母亲大人膝下，敬禀者”。 2．敬启者：写信者自谦为恭敬地陈述事情的人，表示请对方允许自己告诉下面所写的内容。既可用于同辈，也可用于下对上。 3．谨启者：谨，是谨慎、郑重的意思。用于同辈。 4．径启者：径，这里是直截了当的意思，一般公私书函通用。 5．拜启者：拜，表敬词。用于友朋往来书信。 6．敬呈者、谨呈者：皆用于下对上的公私书函。 7．恳启者：用于平辈，表示下面信文将写求助于对方的内容。 8．兹启者：兹，这里，现在。兹启，意即今在此陈述。态度客观平和，不含明显敬意。 9．哀启者：向亲友报丧的书信用此。 10．复禀者：用于对尊亲或上级的回信复禀。 11．再启者：用于对平辈的回信复禀。 12．专启者：用于专谈某实事的书信。 （二）根据具体情况，或作寒喧客套，或提示写信原委等。 顷诵华笺，具悉一切。忽奉手教，获悉一是。 奉诵钧谕，向往尤深。顷获大示，井所赐物。 惠书奉悉，如见故人。幸承明教，茅塞顿开。 披诵尺素，谨表葵私。数获手书，至感厚爱。 展读琅函，甚感盛意。接阅华简，幸叨莫逆。 捧读德音，喜出望外。大札敬悉，稽复乞谅。 暌违日久，拳念殊殷。久疏通问，时在念中。

memo参考范文

Memo sample letters 1 告知信息类 例题： ●You are a manager at an auditors called Golding & Co. Your company has just merged with a competitor to become MasonGolding. You have been asked to inform staff of the change of name. ●Write a memo of 40 - 50 words: * informing staff of the new name * telling them when to start using the new name * asking staff to use only the new name after that time. 收购与兼并merger and aquisition 范文： As a result of our merger with Mason&Co., the name of our company will be changed MasonGolding. Please start to use the new name on 1 March 2006. You are reminded that only the new name can be used from then on. remind/ advise 总结：告知用词 tell notify mention express inform explain note report advise I am writing to tell/inform you that….. I am writing to explain…. (tell your boss why you cannot attend) I am writing to express (my regret) 例题 You are the training manager of a company which has won a large export order. You have been asked to organise foreign language training for some of your staff. Write a memo t o staff: explaining why the courses are necessary saying which members of staff should attend announcing when the courses will start Write 40-50 words on a separate sheet. [范文] To: All staff From: the Training Manager Date: 1 March 2005 Subject: A Foreign Language Training Course I was asked to organise a foreign language training course because of the large export order we received recently. It will start on 15 March and will last 2 weeks. Those who will deal with orders

软件说明书模板

晶圆BPM管理平台 软件说明书 湖南大学信息科学与工程学院 2012年5月

文档控制 修改记录 * 修改类型分为 A—Added M—Modified D—Deleted 审阅人

目录 1 概述 (4) 1.1背景 (4) 1.2应用领域与使用对象 (4) 1.3参考资料 (4) 2 系统综述 (4) 2.1系统功能简介 (4) 2.2系统结构 (4) 3 功能列表 (5) 3.1功能结构 (5) 3.2课程设置 (5) 3.3日程管理 (6) 3.4任务列表 (7) 3.5 笔记记录 (7) 3.6教师信息管理 (8)

1 概述 1.1背景 为了提高大学生学习、工作效率，高效管理课程、任务、笔记、教师信息。 1.2应用领域与使用对象 所有在校大学生。 1.3参考资料 参考 iphone 版课程安排软件inClass 。 2 系统综述 2.1系统功能简介 inClass 软件是基于android 2.2及以上操作系统，为大学生量身定做的一款软件，旨在提高日常学习工作的效率。 inClass 帮助学习者高效管理当前学期的所有课程信息，每门课程的教师信息，及时记录课程笔记、 个性化任务提醒，是每一个高效学习者必备的日程管理软件。 2.2系统结构

3 功能列表 3.1功能结构 3.2课程设置

1. 查看课程列表 2. 编辑课程列表 3. 增加新课程（课程名，授课教师，课程类型，课程代表颜色） 4. 编辑某课程 5. 增加课程安排 6. 一键删除本学期所有课程 代码实现： AllClass.java、NewClass.java、EditClass.java 3.3日程管理 1. 显示日历 2. 查看今日课程安排和任务 3. 点击日历上日期查看某日课程安排和任务 代码实现： DateWidgetDayCell.java、DateWidgetDayHeader.java、DayStyle.java、SymbolButton.java、FirstCalendar.java、ViewTask.java

中文商务信函结尾格式

竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除中文商务信函结尾格式 篇一：商务邮件范例以及格式注意事项 一、事务邮件： x经理/总： 您好！ 非常荣幸能够代表我公司与您联系。 我是xxxx公司的xxx（职位）的xxx（姓名），今天将您所感兴趣的我司产 品报价及相关介绍发送给您，请您查阅！ 如果邮件中有任何不清楚的地方或者您需要我们提供任何帮助，请您联系我，电 话：*********，或联系xxx（该客户的具体主管以上负责人）手机号：xxxx。恭祝商祺！ xxx 二、问候邮件： 例一： x经理/总：

您好！ 在这个阳关灿烂的日子里，祝您身体健康，心情愉快！ （在这个特别的日子里，为您送上最真挚的祝福，祝您：生日快乐！工作顺利！） xxx公司xx敬上例二： x经理/总： 您好！ 生活是一种态度，拼搏奋斗之间自由来去，才是生活的真谛！生活是一种心境，慢慢体会了才会有温馨浪漫的甜蜜……今晨阳光灿烂，空气清爽怡人，我愿将这人间最美的时刻送给您。 祝您生活愉快，事业蒸蒸日上！ xxx公司xx敬上例三： x经理/总： 您好！ 一份真诚，能胜万两黄金；一缕温暖，能抵万里寒霜；一句真心的问候，送来我最美好祝愿：忙碌的日子不要忘记照顾自己的身体，祝您身体健康，工作顺利！ xxx公司xx敬上例四： x经理/总： 新年好！ 值此20XX新年来临之际，xxxx（公司）向贵公司表示

最衷心的感谢和最诚挚的祝福， 感谢您长期以来对我们的支持和信任！ 在过去的一年中，我们的团队在您的支持、鼓励、批评下得到了一定的成长。未来的中国是服务的王国，得服务真谛者得天下！你我携手共同为车主创造出体验更加温馨、融洽、激情的消费天空。您的标准就是我们努力的方向。在私下直言批评的是我们的真朋友！请提高您对我们的标准！ 让我们共同携手创造明天、后天!我们的团队还很幼稚，需要指点、批评、鼓励等各种成长的“营养素”，这是您赐予我们最有价值的礼物。 愿我们成为您生命中的礼物，虽然不期而至闯入您的世界，但从此为您打开全新的一扇窗——那一片天空下，生命真挚而温暖，彼此尊重、呵护，彼此温暖。这是我们共同的愿景，这是我们共同的理想！ 新春来临，万象更新，xxxx全体员工衷心祝愿贵公司大展宏图、事业兴旺！顺祝春节愉快，身体健康，阖家欢乐！ xxxx公司 三、感谢信： x经理/总： 您好！ 感谢您长期以往对我司的支持与信任， 注意：

软件使用说明书模板.最新版本

变电所联网监控系统使用说明书 **发展有限公司 2013.04.01

目录 第一部分设计说明______________________________________ 2一系统概况____________________________________________ 2二系统网络结构________________________________________ 2 三、监控内容及方式_____________________________________ 3 3.1 联网变电所_________________________________________ 3 3.2 监控内容___________________________________________ 4 四、使用环境___________________________________________ 4 五、设计依据___________________________________________ 5第二部分系统功能介绍__________________________________ 6 2.1 主菜单_____________________________________________ 8 2.2 历史曲线__________________________________________ 11 2.3 报警查询__________________________________________ 12 2.4 操作查询__________________________________________ 13 2.5 报表查询__________________________________________ 14 2.6 系统说明__________________________________________ 15 2.7 报警确认__________________________________________ 15第三部分系统故障及维护_______________________________ 16 3.1 系统故障处理______________________________________ 16 3.2 使用注意__________________________________________ 16