Interaction of arousal and recall interval in nonsense syllable paired-associate learning.

1964 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis J. Kleinsmith ◽  
Stephen Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Recall Interval

Oppositional Serial Structures and Paired-Associate Learning

1966 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 643-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard R. Pollio
Keyword(s):  
High Probability ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Present Procedure ◽  
Task Requirements ◽  
Organizational Principle ◽  
Rate Of Learning

Ss were required to learn 15 paired-associates; the response terms were the words Beautiful, Pretty, Fair, Homely, and Ugly. Each of these response terms was paired with a different nonsense syllable, such that the same word was correct for 3 different nonsense stimuli. Results indicated that rate of learning and error-characteristics produced by these pairs were similar to those of other serial word orders, such as Freshman-through-Senior and One-through-Five. These data were taken to mean that despite the fact that Beautiful and Ugly are high probability word-associates, on the basis of the present procedure they must be considered to have disparate locations in psychological space. These results imply that words are organized on the basis of a number of different principles and the organizational principle which is manifested in any particular situation strongly depends upon task requirements.

Recall of Paired Associates as a Function of Arousal and Recall Interval

1967 ◽  
Vol 24 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1055-1058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don E. Batten
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
High Arousal ◽  
Recall Interval ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Interaction Hypothesis

An interaction between arousal and recall interval is hypothesized. High arousal and low arousal groups of Ss were given a paired-associate learning task and tested for recall at intervals of 2 min., 20 min., 45 min., 1 day, and 1 wk. Group means agree with the interaction hypothesis but do not differ significantly.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document