Effects of differential stimulus-response isolation under two reading order conditions in paired-associate learning.

1974 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-68
Author(s):  
Raymond L. Erickson
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Order Conditions ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Differential Stimulus ◽  
Reading Order

Effects of Type of Recall Test and Spaced Presentations of Stimulus Terms, Response Terms and Stimulus-Response Terms on Retention in Paired-Associate Learning

1973 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 307-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward W. C. McAllister
Keyword(s):  
Retention Test ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Stimulus Term ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Reinforcement Interval ◽  
Delay Of Reinforcement ◽  
Term Response

The present experiment tested the effects of reinforcement type (stimulus term, response term, and stimulus-response pairs) and type of recall-retention test (stimulus type or response type) as between- S variables and delay-of-reinforcement interval as a within- S variable on retention in paired-associate learning. The analysis showed that type of reinforcement and delay-of-reinforcement interval resulted in significant effects. Type of recall-retention test was not significant and interactions were nonsignificant.

Methodological Studies in Paired-Associate Learning: I. Procedure, Design, and Meaningfulness

1972 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
Adrian Chan ◽  
James M. Gumina
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Stimulus Complexity ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Discrete Trials ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Response Meaningfulness ◽  
Methodological Studies

Design (repeated measures, completely randomized), Presentation Method (paced anticipation, discrete trials), Stimulus Complexity (CVC trigrams, dissyllables), and Stimulus-Response Meaningfulness (high-low, low-high) were varied in 3 experiments. It was shown that repeated measurements design was more directly related to the interaction of meaningfulness level with stimulus-learning than with response-learning in paired-associate learning.

Constant vs Varied Serial Order in Paired-Associate Learning

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Battig ◽  
Sam C. Brown ◽  
Douglas Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Serial Position ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Serial Order ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Order Conditions ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Stages Of Learning ◽  
Relevant Factors

Typical varied serial-order conditions of paired-associate (PA) learning were compared with a constant serial order on all trials in 5 experiments involving systematic variations in method, kind of material, and other potentially relevant factors. The results showed a small but relatively consistent facilitation by constant serial order limited primarily to later stages of learning. Since a shift following the first correct response to each pair from constant to varied serial order produced as much facilitation as did completely constant-order conditions, it was concluded that complex associations involving serial position are developed during early stages of constant-order PA learning, but that these exercise a facilitating influence primarily through the reduction of inter-pair interference late in learning.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document