Associative Reaction Time and Meaningfulness of Stimulus Terms in Paired-Associate Learning and Stimulus Recall

1969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Ley ◽  
David Locascio
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

Effects of Associative Reaction Time and Meaningfulness of Stimulus Terms in Forward and Backward Paired-Associate Learning

1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 867-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Ley ◽  
David Locascio
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Presentation Rate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Backward Recall ◽  
Long Latency ◽  
Stimulus Recognition ◽  
Stage Analysis

48 Ss learned a list of PAs, at either a 2-sec. or 7-sec. presentation rate (PR), in which the stimulus terms were assessed on the bases of associative reaction time (RT) and meaningfulness (M). In forward anticipation learning, the effect of RT of stimulus terms was not significant but M was, with the greatest effect at the 2-sec. PR. In a backward recall test, the short-latency RT stimulus terms were recalled more frequently than the long-latency RT terms and high-M terms were recalled more frequently than low-M terms. The results were interpreted in terms of a two-stage analysis in which the effects of M were related to stimulus recognition and the effects of RT to stimulus recall.

Evaluating Pictographic Symbols: An Automotive Application

1978 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Green ◽  
Richard W. Pew
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Associative Strength ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Automotive Application ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Time Ease

Fifty university students participated in a laboratory experiment which examined 19 pictographic symbols previously used or proposed for labelling automobile controls and displays. Association norms, measures of familiarity, and magnitude estimates of the symbols' communicativeness were collected. Twenty of these subjects also participated in a paired-associate learning task and a two-alternative, forced-choice reaction-time task in which they made same-different judgments in response to verbally presented symbol labels followed by visually presented pictograms. It was found that, in general, the relative order of merit for the individual symbols was not consistent across tasks. Specifically, ratings of communicativeness were found to be well correlated with associative strength and to a lesser extent with reaction time, but associative strength was only weakly correlated with reaction time. Ease of learning was found to be an independent measure.

Reactivity of Judgments of Learning in a Levels-of-Processing Paradigm

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eylul Tekin ◽  
Henry L. Roediger
Keyword(s):  
Target Word ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Levels Of Processing ◽  
Pleasantness Rating ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Counting Task ◽  
Reactive Effect ◽  
Target Words

Abstract. Recent studies have shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) are reactive measures in paired-associate learning paradigms. However, evidence is scarce concerning whether JOLs are reactive in other paradigms. In old/new recognition experiments, we investigated the reactivity effects of JOLs in a levels-of-processing (LOP) paradigm. In Experiments 1 and 2, for each word, subjects saw a yes/no orienting question followed by the target word and a response. Then, they either did or did not make a JOL. The yes/no questions were about target words’ appearances, rhyming properties, or category memberships. In Experiment 3, for each word, subjects gave a pleasantness rating or counted the letter “e ”. Our results revealed that JOLs enhanced recognition across all orienting tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, and for the e-counting task in Experiment 3. This reactive effect was salient for shallow tasks, attenuating – but not eliminating – the LOP effect after making JOLs. We conclude that JOLs are reactive in LOP paradigms and subjects encode words more effectively when providing JOLs.

Age, pacing, and imagery in paired-associate learning.

1976 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. Treat ◽  
Hayne W. Reese
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document