Effects of orienting tasks on free recall in incidental learning: “difficulty,” “effort,” and “process” explanations

1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 481-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Walsh ◽  
James J. Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Learning Difficulty

Limitations to the Spacing Effect

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen ◽  
Remy M. J. P. Rikers ◽  
Henk G. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Phase Retrieval ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Spacing Effect ◽  
Word List ◽  
Intentional Learning ◽  
Study Phase ◽  
Learning Condition

Abstract. The spacing effect refers to the finding that memory for repeated items improves when the interrepetition interval increases. To explain the spacing effect in free-recall tasks, a two-factor model has been put forward that combines mechanisms of contextual variability and study-phase retrieval (e.g., Raaijmakers, 2003 ; Verkoeijen, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2004 ). An important, yet untested, implication of this model is that free recall of repetitions should follow an inverted u-shaped relationship with interrepetition spacing. To demonstrate the suggested relationship an experiment was conducted. Participants studied a word list, consisting of items repeated at different interrepetition intervals, either under incidental or under intentional learning instructions. Subsequently, participants received a free-recall test. The results revealed an inverted u-shaped relationship between free recall and interrepetition spacing in both the incidental-learning condition and the intentional-learning condition. Moreover, for intentionally learned repetitions, the maximum free-recall performance was located at a longer interrepetition interval than for incidentally learned repetitions. These findings are interpreted in terms of the two-factor model of spacing effects in free-recall tasks.

Speed and memory in WAIS–R–NI Digit Symbol performance among healthy older adults

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 770-780 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN JOY ◽  
DEBORAH FEIN ◽  
EDITH KAPLAN ◽  
MORRIS FREEDMAN
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Supplementary Information ◽  
Digit Symbol ◽  
Motor Speed ◽  
Healthy Older Adults ◽  
Adult Lifespan ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Few Data

Although roles have been proposed for both graphomotor speed and learning in the execution of Digit Symbol, few data have been available concerning performance across the adult lifespan on the Symbol Copy, paired associates, or free recall measures derived from Digit Symbol and recommended in the WAIS–R–NI. We report findings on 177 healthy older adults (ages 50–90), providing normative data by age group, education level, and gender. As previously reported, Digit Symbol scores decline steeply with age (r = −.64). Symbol Copy speed declines almost as steeply (r = −.58). Incidental learning, however, declines only modestly (r = −.26 on both measures). Symbol Copy is a far stronger correlate of Digit Symbol (r = .72) than are paired associates or free recall (r = .26 and r = .28, respectively). The 2 incidental learning measures do, however, offer valuable supplementary information as part of a comprehensive individual assessment. When low Digit Symbol scores are produced by slowing on Symbol Copy, further evaluation of perceptual and motor speed and dexterity are indicated. When low incidental learning scores are obtained, further evaluation of memory is warranted. Qualitative analysis of errors (e.g., rotations) made on the incidental learning procedures may also be valuable. (JINS, 2000, 6, 770–780.)

Classification Learning of Items Grouped on the Basis of Degree of Prior Learning

1965 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 807-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Battig ◽  
Stuart M. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Learning Difficulty ◽  
Classification Learning ◽  
Prior Learning ◽  
Digit Number ◽  
Free Recall Learning ◽  
Actual Learning

Contrary to expectation, no facilitation of classification (CI) learning was produced if all four items (common 4-letter words) to be associated with the same number response were presented the same number of times during a prior free-recall learning task (FL), as compared with an ungrouped condition where each such item was presented a different number of times during FL. Both were superior to a control condition given FL with Easy (1-digit) number responses but not with Hard (2-digit) numbers, where CI performance became degraded if items presented equal numbers of times during FL were selected by E rather than being based on actual learning difficulty for S. These results indicate substantial and unexpected differences between free and classification learning involving common words.

Gender Differences on WAIS-III Incidental Learning, Pairing, and Free Recall

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Ryan ◽  
David S. Kreiner ◽  
Heather A. Tree
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning

Spacing Effect in Free Recall as an Obligatory Phenomenon

1976 ◽  
Vol 38 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1321-1322
Author(s):  
James D. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Spacing Effect ◽  
Positive Function ◽  
Human Memory ◽  
Intentional Learning ◽  
Automatic Processes ◽  
Spacing Interval

Theories of human memory which stress the importance of optional study processes predict that the spacing of repetitions will affect the free recall of twice-presented words only under intentional learning. The present investigation, involving 36 subjects, compared the “spacing effect” obtained with incidental learning to that obtained with intentional learning. That the level of free recall increased as a positive function of the spacing interval under both types of learning upheld hypotheses which attribute the spacing phenomenon to obligatory, or automatic, processes.

Children's Free Recall and Clustering Related to List-Task Organization, Instruction to Learn and Presentation Rate

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1139-1148
Author(s):  
Claire B. Ernhart ◽  
Sybil B. Licht ◽  
Annette Kowalski ◽  
Lynne S. Carman
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Presentation Rate ◽  
Fifth Grade ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Intentional Learning ◽  
Recall Data ◽  
Slow Presentation ◽  
Clustering Data ◽  
And Task

Free recall of 144 fifth grade children given a handwriting orienting task was improved by instruction to learn as opposed to incidental instruction and by slower presentation rate. Active taxonomic categorization surpassed passive writing of the same clustering list, which, in turn, surpassed writing of a nonclusterable list. Interactions were not significant although increased time tended to facilitate intentional more than incidental learning. In Exp. 2 using 72 children in Grades 3 and 6, the categorizing task was superior to blocked presentation, which, in turn, surpassed random presentation of the clusterable list. Clustering data did not parallel recall data, being influenced by list organization rather than by categorization. Clustering increased under slow presentation for incidental but not for intentional learning. The over-all results indicate that school-age children can improve learning under instruction and can benefit from changes in list and task, but that their own organization (clustering) is fortuitous to recall.

Remembering the Forgotten? Reminiscence, Hypermnesia and Memory for Order

2003 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Kelley ◽  
James S. Nairne
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Repeated Testing ◽  
Memory For Order

Three experiments established that repeated testing affects item and order retention differently: Hypermnesia was found with repeated free recall tests, whereas net performance declined significantly across successive free reconstruction of order tests. Overall order performance declined over tests under a variety of encoding conditions (pictures, words, and relational and item-specific processing) and retrieval conditions (intentional and incidental learning). Although net performance dropped across tests, participants did show reliable order recovery (reminiscence) between tests. The implications of these data for general theories of hypermnesia and order are discussed.

Free Recall of Verbal and Non-Verbal Stimuli

1970 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Sampson
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Word Recall ◽  
Delayed Recall ◽  
Verbal Stimuli ◽  
Learning Set ◽  
Male Subjects ◽  
Verbal Performance

In two experiments, 40 and 72 male subjects viewed 24 items, half as words and half as drawings. In Experiment I, all subjects were given a learning set; free recall was tested immediately after stimulus presentation and 30 min. later. In Experiment II, half the subjects were set; recall was tested immediately and/or 1 day later. Picture recall was superior to word recall in all conditions (P < 0.005), in agreement with the findings of other investigators. Major extensions to previous procedures involved incidental learning, mixed stimulus lists, non-verbal reporting of pictures and delayed recall. A double-encoding explanation for the superior non-verbal performance is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document