{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01927437641723356, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005668934240362812, 'mean_word_length': 5.445255474452555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the retrieval of item versus spatial position information.

It has been argued that temporal and spatial position information are represented similarly, but prior research comparing their time course of retrieval with item information has not supported this conclusion. The time course of retrieval was compared for spatial position and item information in 3 response signal experiments, and differences were found in the time course of retrieval that paralleled those found previously for temporal position and item information (B.M. McElree & B.A. Dosher, 1993). The finding was unaffected by restrictions on the degree of relational support, postretrieval decision difficulty, and the elimination of a strategy favoring item recognition. The authors conclude by discussing whether the data indicate that a recall process was contributing to recognition performance.