The paired associate learning task: Is it an externally valid instrument for assessing methylphenidate response in children with attention deficit disorder?

1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Rapport ◽  
Sandra Loo ◽  
Colin Denney
Keyword(s):  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Attention Deficit Disorder ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Valid Instrument

Methylphenidate Hydrochloride Given With or Before Breakfast: I. Behavioral, Cognitive, and Electrophysiologic Effects

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-55
Author(s):  
James M. Swanson ◽  
Curt A. Sandman ◽  
Curtis Deutsch ◽  
Martin Baren
Keyword(s):  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Attention Deficit Disorder ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Placebo Condition ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Learning Test

Methylphenidate HCl (Ritalin) is usually given for the treatment of hyperactivity or attention deficit disorder (ADD) at 30 minutes to one hour before meals. This schedule is based on the assumption that, when taken with meals, its absorption or metabolism is altered. However, no behavioral or pharmacologic data exist to support this recommendation. Eleven patients with attention deficit disorder were tested to evaluate this hypothesis using a double-blind crossover design (methylphenidate with or before breakfast) with a placebo control condition. Parents' ratings, performance on a paired-associate learning test, and cortical auditoryevoked potentials were measured. All of these measurements showed clear differences between the placebo condition and conditions when medication was given. However, none of the measurements showed a significant difference between the conditions when methylphenidate was given with breakfast and the condition when methylphenidate was given 30 minutes before breakfast.

Effect of Motivating Instructions on Verbal Learning According to Age and Race

1980 ◽  
Vol 46 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1167-1170
Author(s):  
Robert G. Summerlin ◽  
Charles V. Lair ◽  
William N. Confer
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Verbal Learning ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Instructional Condition ◽  
Associate Learning

Young and old white ( n = 48) and black ( n = 48) women were compared on a paired-associate learning task. The groups were divided as to a motivational instructional condition of support, challenge, or neutral. Both the younger and the white groups had more correct responses and learned in fewer trials. A three-way interaction suggests that old blacks make more errors of omission and commission under supportive instructions, whereas young whites do best under challenge. Various trends and implications for these findings were discussed.

Effects of Suggestibility on Learning by Retarded and Nonretarded Students

1984 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 663-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette U. Shuck ◽  
Barbara L. Ludlow
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Treatment Conditions ◽  
Positive Performance ◽  
Performance Suggestions ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Plot Design

Mildly mentally retarded and nonretarded students (age range: 10 to 16 yr.), classified by groups according to low suggestibility, were exposed to positive, negative, or neutral suggestions concerning their performance on a paired-associate learning task. A split-plot design assessed interactions between variables of subjects' category and suggestibility and treatment conditions, such as suggestion provided and trials. Analyses of variance showed retarded students improved more. The data also suggested somewhat improved performance by subjects given a positive suggestion. The suggestibility of many retarded students may be used by trainers to facilitate faster learning of simple tasks, especially if positive performance suggestions are employed.

Effects of Language Facility in Learning

1978 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond S. Dean ◽  
Raymond W. Kulhavy
Keyword(s):  
Primary School ◽  
School Success ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Partial Explanation ◽  
Future School

Sixty-four primary school boys were classified as being high or low in vocabulary and randomly assigned to a language mediation instruction or non-instructed condition. Children were individually administered CVC’s, paralogs, and simple words in a three trial paired-associate learning task. Locus of facilitation was found primarily in upper vocabulary groups and for familiar words rather than paralogs and CVC’s. Low vocabulary subjects produced fewer mediators and were less likely to get an item correct when a mediator was given. The performance of students with well-developed vocabularies was linked to their ability to manipulate language and language-based tasks. These data offer a partial explanation why vocabulary tests predict future school success, independent of overall intelligence.

Geheugenstructuren En Woordleren

1985 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 55-67
Author(s):  
Gerard Nas
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Semantic Category ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
L2 Vocabulary

In this article a model of foreign (L2) vocabulary learning is first developed in which the representation of the spelling, the pronunciation and the meaning(s) of a word are stored in their respective networks. Vocabulary learning in a paired associate learning task is then defined as the building of nodes in a network and as the establishing of an associative pathway between each new node (representing the spelling, pronunciation or meaning(s) of a newly learned L2 word) and the corresponding node for its L1 equivalent. In this model differences in spelling or pronunciation between L2 words and their L1 translations are expressed in terms of differences in length of their associative pathways. On the basis of the above distinctions a prediction was made about a difference in input speed and in the period of retrievability between two kinds of Arabic- Dutch word pairs. It was predicted that word pairs sharing some phonemic features would be learned sooner and remembered longer than those without any of these features in common. The above prediction was confirmed in a group experiment. Moreover, it showed that a resemblance between L2-L1 word pairs had a greater effect on retrievability than on input speed. Finally, the diverging results for one of the testwords were interpreted as indicating that also in associate learning of L2-L1 pairs the semantic category to which that word belonged had played its part. Its abstract meaning was assumed to have negatively affected the time needed to store the word in memory.

Effect of Sensory Modality for Presentation and Word Imagery on Paired-Associate Learning

1981 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 747-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Papineau ◽  
Jeffrey M. Lohr
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Auditory Presentation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Associate Learning

Recall performance on a paired-associate learning task was investigated as a function of word imagery modality (visual or auditory), presentation mode (visual or auditory), and sex. Analysis showed greater recall of visual imagery words, and the results are consistent with Paivio's (1971) conceptual-peg hypothesis. Visual presentation of word lists produced greater recall than auditory presentation, and females exhibited greater recall performance than did males. A predicted interaction between modality for presentation and for word imagery did not reach statistical significance. The implications for future research with sensory imagery in learning are discussed.

Rated Imagery and Pictures in Paired-Associate Learning

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1247-1250 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Morelli ◽  
Diana Lang
Keyword(s):  
Mental Imagery ◽  
Visual Imagery ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Imagery Condition

The present study investigated the effect of two tests of imagery, the Betts QMI Vividness of Mental Imagery Test vs the Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control, in a paired-associate learning task involving imposed imagery versus uncontrolled imagery. 57 Ss were equally divided into Picture, Competing-picture, Words-alone groups and were asked to rate themselves as to method of learning. Later Ss were given the imagery tests. No relation was found between the Betts QMI and PA learning. The Gordon Test related to PA learning only in the picture-imposed imagery condition. Comparisons between Ss who rated themselves pictorializers vs verbalizers were related to PA learning only in the picture-imposed imagery condition.

Information Processing by Performers and Observers in a Paired Associate Learning Task

1979 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Eelen ◽  
Géry D'Ydewalle
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Learning Strategy ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Response Alternative ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Recognition Procedure ◽  
Response Alternatives ◽  
And Performance

The effects of two training procedures on learning and performance are compared. Performers select a response alternative for each stimulus on Trial 1 and receive feedback in terms of “Right” or “Wrong”. Observers receive the same information by listening to the experimenter. Experiment I tests the hypothesis that performers and observers are using a different learning strategy when there are only two response alternatives available for each stimulus on Trial 1. A recognition procedure was used on Trial 2; each stimulus was followed by four alternatives, two of them being the same as presented on Trial 1. Subjects have to recognize the two “old” alternatives. Performers are always better at recognizing the chosen alternative, whereas observers are better at recognizing the correct alternative. Experiment II extends the comparison between performers and observers to a task with four response alternatives on Trial 1. There are no longer differences in performance between the two training procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document