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 ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
The Other ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Interactive Imagery ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Group Recall

Previous experiments designed to investigate the effects of interactive imagery in paired associate learning have included the confounded variable of intralist similarity: Images of objects interacting have corresponded to pairs with different connectives, and images of independent objects have corresponded to pairs with the same connective (the conjunction “and”). For the “different” group of our first experiment, the members of the different pairs were linked by different connectives, most of which denoted an action. For the “same” group, the members were linked by the same connective, usually one denoting an action. For the “and” group, the members were linked by the connective “and”. Cued recall by the “different” group was superior to that of the other two groups. Recall by the “same” and “and” groups did not differ. Within the “different” group, recall of “and” pairs did not differ from the recall of “action” pairs with which they had been mixed. In a second experiment, subjects were required to match the members of a pair. Analogous results were obtained. Overall, the findings imply that recall effects that have previously been interpreted as being a result of interactive imagery may be the result merely of variations in intralist similarity.

Study-Test and Anticipation Methods in Paired-Associate Learning of Similar and Non-Similar Lists

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1237-1241 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. W. Behring ◽  
Donna J. Zaffy
Keyword(s):  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Study Test

The purposes of the present study were to compare the study-test and anticipation procedures and to investigate the effect of high intralist similarity upon learning by each method. Forty Ss, 24 females and 16 males, learned one list by each method. The results indicate that the study-test method leads to better performance, as measured by number of trials to criterion. The detrimental effect of high intralist similarity was significant only for the study-test method. This finding is contrary to the results reported by other investigators.

scholarly journals Examining Three-way Binding as a Constraint on Statistical Learning

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyungwook Yim ◽  
Simon Dennis ◽  
Vladimir Sloutsky
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Learning ◽  
Explicit Memory ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Learning Paradigm ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Memory Structures

Models of statistical learning do not place constraints on the complexity of the memory structure that is formed during statistical learning, while empirical studies using the statistical learning task have only examined the formation of simple memory structures (e.g., two-way binding). On the other hand, the memory literature, using explicit memory tasks, has shown that people are able to form memory structures of different complexities and that more complex memory structures (e.g., three-way binding) are usually more difficult to form. We examined whether complex memory structures such as three-way bindings can be implicitly formed through statistical learning by utilizing manipulations that have been used in the paired-associate learning paradigm (e.g., AB/ABr condition). Through three experiments, we show that while simple two-way binding structures can be formed implicitly, three-way bindings can only be formed with explicit instructions. The results indicate that explicit attention may be a necessary component in forming three-way memory structures and suggest that existing models should place constraints on the representational structures that can be formed.

Mixed- versus Unmixed-List Designs in Paired-Associate Learning

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1191-1200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chizuko Izawa
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Factorial Experimental Design ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List ◽  
Fluctuation Model

Investigations of a new experimental variable from the arrangements of reinforcements (R) and tests (T) in paired-associate learning were furthered by a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental design: 64 college students learned two lists of 12 pairs, one with unmixed list (Exp. I) and the other with mixed list (Exp. II). Four repetitive experimental sequences in each experiment were RTRT …, RRTRRT. … RTTRTT …, and RRTTRRTT. … No significant differences were found between mixed- and unmixed-list designs for any given statistic examined. The findings indicate that individual pairs in a given condition were learned relatively independently of those in the other conditions within a list. The present results were close replications of the previous study by Izawa (1966a) and support the stimulus fluctuation model.

Effects of Learning Set, Verbalization, Sample Characteristics, and Meaningfulness of Material on Bi-Directional Learning

1969 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 747-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Baller ◽  
Sue Wilbur ◽  
A. J. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Learning Tasks ◽  
Sample Characteristics ◽  
Learning Set ◽  
Directional Learning

Four independent variables were studied as they relate to bi-directionality in recall. The data indicate that the effect of meaningfulness of material is sufficient to offset effects of the other three variables (learning set, verbalization, sample characteristics) for bi-directional learning. A suggestion is provided for using an index of relationships identified in determining list difficulty in paired-associate learning tasks.

Experimenter-Made vs Subject-Made Mnemonics in Paired-Associate Learning

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis R. Lieberman ◽  
William M. Walters ◽  
William Miles Cox
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Scholastic Aptitude Test ◽  
The Other ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Scholastic Aptitude ◽  
Mnemonic Devices ◽  
The Difference

Two groups of Ss learned 42 pairs of words as a standard paired-associates learning task. One group was provided with mnemonic devices as an aid in learning the pairs and the other group was told to make up their own mnemonic aids. The difference in the number of pairs learned was not significant. Correlation between recall scores and Scholastic Aptitude Test verbal scores approached 0. There was a high correlation between the number of Ss who recalled a given pair correctly in the two groups. This suggests that certain pairs of words are easier to learn than others, regardless of whether S is given a mnemonic aid or has to contrive his own.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document