scholarly journals Asymmetry in stimulus-term and response-term recall following paired- associate training

1965 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-12) ◽  
pp. 297-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Slater E. Newman ◽  
Joseph W. Cunningham ◽  
Clifton W. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Stimulus Term

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.

Associative Asymmetry in S-R vs R-S Recall of Double-Function Lists

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Battig ◽  
R. J. Koppenaal
Keyword(s):  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Associative Symmetry ◽  
Formal Identity ◽  
Double Function ◽  
Major Shortcoming

Contrary to the Asch-Ebenholtz principle of associative symmetry, significantly poorer backward (R–S) than forward (S–R) recall was demonstrated following the learning of double-function paired-associate lists, wherein each item appears once as a stimulus and again as a response term but is paired with two different other terms. Since equal availability of stimulus and response terms is guaranteed by the formal identity of the two sets within these double-function lists, thereby eliminating a major shortcoming of previous attempts to test the Asch-Ebenholtz thesis that S–R and R–S associations within each pair are necessarily equivalent in strength, the present results offer strong evidence against the validity of the principle of associative symmetry as applied to paired-associate learning.

scholarly journals Effect of number and relatedness of stimulus-term components on paired-associate learning

1968 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 315-316
Author(s):  
Joseph Liftik ◽  
Kenneth L. Leicht
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Stimulus Term ◽  
Associate Learning

Mere Exposure to Stimulus and Response Terms and Paired-Associate Learning

1977 ◽  
Vol 41 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1167-1171
Author(s):  
J. M. Innes
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Mere Exposure ◽  
Stimulus Term ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
The Subject

Subjects learned four-item paired-associate lists by the method of anticipation. Items were composed from Turkish-like words which the subject had either never seen previously or which had been exposed 16 times in a previous familiarization process designed to minimize the induction of verbal satiation. Analysis of the data indicated significant facilitation of learning due to familiarization with the stimulus term and a significant interaction of stimulus and response terms. The experiment demonstrates the likely importance of the encoding of stimulus terms in the learning of paired-associate lists and shows that mere exposure to materials can modify later response to those materials.

Inter-Item Associative Strength and Proactive Inhibition in Paired-Associate Learning

1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 933-934
Author(s):  
John A. Mills ◽  
Gordon Winocur
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Retention Interval ◽  
Associative Strength ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Function Words ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Prior List

The experimental design was 2 × 2 factorial, with 2 levels of prior list (one or none), 2 of response term inter-item associative strength (high or low), and a 15-min. retention interval. The expectation was that high inter-item associative strength would reduce proactive inhibition. The hypothesis failed; the proportion of function words per list had no effect on recall.

The Supposed Effect of Interactive Imagery in Paired Associate Learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 888-900
Author(s):  
Richard N. Wilton ◽  
Patricia Mathieson
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Interactive Imagery

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

Survival Processing Does Not Improve Paired-Associate Learning

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bennett L. Schwartz ◽  
Brock R. Brothers
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Survival Processing ◽  
Associate Learning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document