scholarly journals A component analysis of natural language mediators obtained in paired-associate learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 512-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry M. Owens ◽  
Pamela R. Werder ◽  
Philip H. Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Component Analysis ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

scholarly journals Natural language mediation and interitem interference in paired-associate learning

1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A. Adams ◽  
John S. Mcintyre ◽  
Howard I. Thorsheim
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

Natural language associability in paired-associate learning.

1970 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clinton B. Walker ◽  
William E. Montague ◽  
Alexander J. Wearing
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

scholarly journals Natural language mediators in paired associate learning

1965 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-12) ◽  
pp. 549-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold O. Kiess ◽  
William E. Montague
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
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