Is There Cross-format Transfer in Implicit Invariance Learning?

2000 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Stadler ◽  
Justin L. Warren ◽  
Shana L. Lesch
Keyword(s):  
Learning And Memory ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Response Strategy ◽  
Learning Paradigm ◽  
Implicit Learning And Memory

Three experiments investigated cross-form transfer in the invariance learning paradigm introduced by McGeorge and Burton (1990). The results suggest that the transfer observed by McGeorge and Burton depended on subjects’ ability to use a response strategy discovered by Wright and Burton (1995). When that strategy was denied to subjects (Experiments 1 and 2), no cross-form transfer was observed; when the strategy was made available (Experiment 3), cross-form transfer re-emerged. These results suggest that this form of learning, like many other forms of implicit learning and memory, is hyperspecific.

scholarly journals Implicit Learning and Memory for Random Visual Noise

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1134-1134
Author(s):  
A. Aizenman ◽  
S. Bond ◽  
R. Sekuler ◽  
J. Gold
Keyword(s):  
Learning And Memory ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Visual Noise ◽  
Implicit Learning And Memory

Implicit Learning and Concept Learning

1995 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 762-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Frick ◽  
Yuh-Shiow Lee
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Concept Learning ◽  
Implicit Knowledge ◽  
Learning Paradigm ◽  
Immediate Memory ◽  
Distinguishing Features ◽  
Better Than

In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were exposed to letter strings that followed a pattern—the second letter was always the same. This exposure was disguised as a test of immediate memory. Following this training, subjects could discriminate new letter strings following the pattern from letter strings not following the pattern more often than would be expected by chance, which is the traditional evidence for concept learning. Discrimination was also better than would be predicted from subjects’ explicit report of the pattern, demonstrating the co-occurrence of concept learning and implicit learning. In Experiment 3, rules were learned explicitly. Discrimination was worse than would be predicted from subjects’ explicit report, validating the implicit learning paradigm. In Experiment 4, deviations from a prototypical pattern were presented during training. In the test of discrimination, prototypes were as familiar as old deviations and more familiar than new deviations, even when considering only implicit knowledge. Experiment 5 found implicit knowledge of a familiar concept. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the distinguishing features of a concept can be learned implicitly, and that one type of implicit learning is concept learning.

scholarly journals Repeated exposure to exemplars does not enhance implicit learning: A puzzle for models of learning and memory

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-329
Author(s):  
Greg J Neil ◽  
Philip A Higham
Keyword(s):  
Learning And Memory ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Structural Effect ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Item Memory ◽  
Flexible Learning ◽  
The World ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Rule Set ◽  
Improved Learning

We learn regularities in the world around us, frequently without conscious effort, a phenomenon known as implicit learning. These regularities are often impossible to verbalise. One example of implicit learning is the structural effect, in which participants learn a rule set combining two factors, such as lexical frequency and concreteness. Theories of implicit learning predict that repetition of exemplar words would result in improved learning of the rule set, increasing the magnitude of the structural effect. Over four experiments, we demonstrate that this is, in fact, not the case. In Experiments 1 and 2, three repetitions of exemplar words result in superior item memory, but no change in the magnitude of the structural effect, compared with individually presented words. In Experiments 3 and 4, the structural effect is shown to be invariant to five repetitions of exemplar words and at high and low numbers of exemplars. In all four experiments, participants were unable to describe the rule set underlying the structural effect. However, confidence ratings demonstrated sensitivity to the structure and this sensitivity, unlike endorsements, increased with strength. The results are discussed in reference to differentiation, structural versus judgement knowledge, and flexible learning systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document