scholarly journals The importance of the within-trial interval in the superiority of the recall over anticipation method of paired-associate learning

1975 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-133
Author(s):  
Mitchell G. Brigell ◽  
Charles P. Thompson ◽  
Sam C. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Anticipation Method

Effects of Non-Anticipation and Anticipation Procedures upon Paired-Associate Learning in Unmixed and Mixed List Designs

1964 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 795-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List ◽  
Anticipation Method

Two experiments compared verbal PA learning by the standard anticipation technique with learning by a non-anticipation method in which immediate confirmation O- correct responding was eliminated. Most previous investigations have found that learning by the latter procedure is superior to learning by the usual anticipation method. In Exp. I, which employed an unmixed list design, no differences in learning were obtained between the two methods at either of two levels of list difficulty. However, Exp. II, using the same materials in a mixed list design, showed superior learning of items presented by the non-anticipation method regardless of the difficulty of the list. The conflicting results of the two experiments suggest that evidence for superior verbal PA learning by the non-anticipation method may depend, at least in part, upon the list design employed.

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.

Paired-Associate Learning by Anticipation and Non-Anticipation Methods: Supplementary Data

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1123-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Supplementary Data ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Learning Methods ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Initial Testing ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
In Series ◽  
Anticipation Method

Groups learning paired-associates by either the anticipation or non-anticipation method were given a single test after 6 trials and then 5 more tests in series after 9 trials. No differences between learning methods were obtained on either initial testing or the recall series. The results confirm previous findings that the methods yield equivalent learning, suggesting that informational feedback is unnecessary for verbal associative formation.

Anticipation vs Recall in the Paired-Associate Learning of Intellectually Average and Retarded Subjects

1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Milton Blue
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
School Age ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Learning Speed ◽  
Educable Mentally Retarded ◽  
Visual Materials ◽  
Anticipation Method

A P-A (visual materials) study was conducted with 24 intellectually average and 24 educable mentally retarded individuals of high school age. Each S received 2 equivalent tasks, one in the anticipation method of presentation and the other in the recall method. The learning speed of the average Ss was significantly superior to that of the retardates. Method of presentation did not influence the learning of the average Ss but learning in the recall presentation was superior for retarded Ss.

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