Paired-Associate Recall as a Function of Mnemonic Instructions, Trials, and Intention to Learn

1972 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 295-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin G. Aiken
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Memory Storage ◽  
Storage Model ◽  
Trial Number ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Superior Recall ◽  
Mnemonic Instruction

A comparison was made between a mnemonic instruction intended to generate intraverbal processes with one intended to generate imaginal processes as aids to the recall of noun-noun paired-associates. Trial number and duration, and intent to learn were varied factorially with mnemonic instruction. Results indicate superior recall for Ss given imaginal instructions, for Ss intending to learn, and for Ss receiving more but shorter trials over those receiving fewer but longer trials. An interaction between mnemonic instruction and intent to learn reached the borderline of significance. The data are interpreted as inferential support for a dual, pictorial-intraverbal memory storage model.

Reinforcement-Test Sequences in Paired-Associate Learning

1966 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chizuko Izawa
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Optimal Programming ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Fluctuation Model

To obtain evidence as to whether either learning or forgetting occurs on unreinforced trials and to adduce principles of optimal programming of reinforced (R) and test (T) trials, two experiments were planned each having four conditions with different repetitive R-T sequences: RTRT …, RRTRRT …, RTTRTT …, and RRTTRRTT. … 50 college students in each experiment learned 5 paired associates under each condition. Performance on successive Ts without intervening reinforcement suggested that neither learning nor forgetting occurred on Ts per se. However, the occurrence of Ts increased the effectiveness of subsequent Rs. A stimulus fluctuation model accounted for the major acquisition and retention phenomena, including the differential rates of learning under the different R-T sequences.

Perceptual and Linguistic Encoding in Recognition Memory and Paired-Associate Learning

1971 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edgar A. Chenoweth ◽  
Gerry L. Wilcove
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Introductory Psychology ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates

A perceptual paired-associates task was presented in which pictures of objects and consonant-vowel-consonant trigrams served as stimulus and response members of the P-A unit, respectively. Introductory psychology students had been classified previously into encoding groups on the basis of their performance on a memory task. The prediction that the linguistic encoders would learn the PA task more slowly than the perceptual encoders was supported by the results.

Transfer of Paired-Associates as a Function of Stimulus Meaningfulness

1978 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-257
Author(s):  
Marla Kahn-Edrington ◽  
Coleman Merryman ◽  
Shelli Helm ◽  
Gary Okowita
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Stimulus Meaningfulness

Paired-associate transfer in the A-D, A-B paradigm was negative for stimuli of high meaningfulness but not for stimuli of low meaningfulness. This result is consistent with Martin's hypothesis of variable encoding.

Human Classical Conditioning of Visual Compound Stimuli in Paired-Associate Tasks

1998 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-241
Author(s):  
L. J. Harris ◽  
Jeffrey C. Amundson
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Classical Conditioning ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Stimulus Element ◽  
Sharp Rise ◽  
Response Factors ◽  
Mnemonic Device ◽  
First Order ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Within Subjects

College students in introductory psychology participated in four experiments to investigate the salience of color versus figure elements of paired associates. The study also reviewed the process of learning paired associates within the context of first-order simultaneous classical conditioning. In Exp. 1, four separate classes received different treatments concerning the position and type of stimulus element (color of figure) they were instructed to recall. There were seven trials with a 30-min. delay between the sixth and seventh trials. The results indicated that the groups who were required to remember the figure element of the pairs, significantly out-performed the color groups and also learned the pairs much faster. Also, there was a sharp rise in mean correct responses remembered after a 30-min. delay for the group required to recall the color element of the paired associates. Exp. 2 was a within-subjects comparison of the effectiveness of the color and figure elements as stimuli. Again, the figures elicited more correct responses than colors. Exp. 3 tested the effectiveness within subjects of the stimulus elements as response factors. As responses, however, there were no significant differences in the number of correct answers when recalling color or figure elements until the 30-min. delay between Trials 6 and 7. As expected in Exp. 4, figures elicited significantly more functional descriptions than did colors, suggesting that figures possess a logographic nature which acts as a mnemonic device aiding in the memory of stimuli and responses.

Effects of Activation Level on Paired-Associate Learning

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 329-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Germana
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Position Effect ◽  
Skin Resistance ◽  
High Activation ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Activation Level ◽  
Activation Theory ◽  
Omission Errors ◽  
Competing Responses

Ss were divided into high activation (HiAct) and low activation (LoAct) groups on the basis of pre-learning basal skin resistance (BSR). All Ss were given 3 trials on 2 different lists of paired-associates and the number of competing responses, omission errors, and correct responses emitted were recorded. In support of activation theory, it was found that HiAct Ss consistently made more competing responses but fewer omission errors than the LoAct Ss. The study also replicated the systematic decrement in number of competing responses across Trial 2 positions found in an earlier study and termed there the “habituational position effect.”

Temporal Relations and Meaningfulness in Paired-Associate Learning

1965 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
Robert M. W. Travers
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Response Side ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Present Procedure ◽  
Response Meaningfulness ◽  
Stimulus Side ◽  
High Stimulus ◽  
Anticipation Method

Each of 34 Ss was presented with a list of 12 paired associates which were arranged according to high-low or low-high stimulus and response meaningfulness and also in a simultaneous or sequential time relationship. Meaningfulness level on the stimulus side of the dyad rather than on the response side was found to be more crucial for learning, and significantly more learning occurred also when the dyads were presented in the simultaneous condition. The findings were discussed in terms of both association theory and the differences between the present procedure and the conventional anticipation method.

Efficiency of the Add-A-Pair Method in Learning Paired-Associates

1972 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Wilton L. Gibson ◽  
Lewis R. Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Single Pair ◽  
Digit Number ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Pair Method

An unrecognized implication of Rock's (1957) analysis of paired-associate learning is that a most efficient way of learning a list is to begin with a single pair and add a pair each trial until the whole list is learned. A list of 17 difficult, single-lettered, 2-digit number pairs was used. 18 control Ss received all pairs for 9 trials, while 18 experimental Ss used the add-a-pair method. By the last trial and 153 exposures each, experimental Ss knew 9.72 pairs compared to 6.78 for controls, a significant advantage.

Paired-Associate Learning, Mediation Value and the Drop-Out Method

1968 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 671-674
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Cohen ◽  
Andreas Murray
Keyword(s):  
Incremental Learning ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates

Pools of paired associates (double or single letters paired with one- or two-digit numbers) were constructed so that all pairs within a pool had approximately the same mediation value (MV), this latter value being defined as the ease with which a mediator can be found within a pair. These pools were then used in a drop-out experiment where a list of 8 pairs were learned to a criterion of one correct repetition. The main result was that rate of presentation, mean MV of the pool and drop-out/constant procedure were significant. That the variable drop-out/constant procedure proved significant is contrary to the results obtained by Rock, and this is discussed in relation to the question of one-trial versus incremental learning.

Learning Principles in Paired-Associate Lists

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 329-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Scandura
Keyword(s):  
Positive Relationship ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Rate ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Learning Principles

Learning rate and transfer to new stimuli requiring new responses, were found to vary directly with the number of instances (1, 2, 3, 6) of principles in a 12-pair list of paired associates. Also, a positive relationship was found between learning rate and transfer within the 6-instance condition.

Paired-Associate Analogue of Language Learning: Role of Reinforcement, Repetition, and Number of Rule Instances

1970 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 319-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faye M. Fletcher ◽  
Claire F. Etaugh ◽  
Larry D. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Verbal Reinforcement ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Better Than

Adults learned 25 paired associates, forming a 5 by 5 matrix, in which the stimuli were 2-digit numbers and the responses were 2-letter pairs; 23 pairs (“regulars”) followed matrix rules; 2 pairs (“irregulars”) did not. on study trials, Ss were presented 21 regular pairs once and 2 irregular pairs twice; test trials were with all 25 stimuli. Ss learned the pairs more rapidly than those in a similar study which used fewer pairs and a smaller matrix. Ss receiving verbal reinforcement for correct responses on test trials performed no better than Ss not reinforced. Ss receiving both verbal reinforcement and repetition of correct responses on test trials learned fastest. Performance on irregular pairs was initially better than on regular pairs. Errors on the irregulars involved generalization of regular responses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document