The interaction of ability and amount of practice with stimulus and response meaningfulness (m, m') in paired-associate learning.

1958 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor J. Cieutat ◽  
Fredric E. Stockwell ◽  
Clyde E. Noble
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Response Meaningfulness

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.

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.

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