scholarly journals R-S recall and recognition as functions of stimulus and response meaningfulness

1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 229-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Sedivy ◽  
Donald H. Kausler
Keyword(s):  
Response Meaningfulness

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.

Methodological Studies in Paired-Associate Learning: I. Procedure, Design, and Meaningfulness

1972 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
Adrian Chan ◽  
James M. Gumina
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Stimulus Complexity ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Discrete Trials ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Response Meaningfulness ◽  
Methodological Studies

Design (repeated measures, completely randomized), Presentation Method (paced anticipation, discrete trials), Stimulus Complexity (CVC trigrams, dissyllables), and Stimulus-Response Meaningfulness (high-low, low-high) were varied in 3 experiments. It was shown that repeated measurements design was more directly related to the interaction of meaningfulness level with stimulus-learning than with response-learning in paired-associate learning.

Paired-Associate Transfer as a Function of Stimulus and Response Meaningfulness

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip M. Merikle
Keyword(s):  
Negative Transfer ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Positive Transfer ◽  
Response Learning ◽  
Associative Interference ◽  
Control Paradigm ◽  
Recall Procedure ◽  
Response Meaningfulness

Transfer under the A-Br, A-D, and C-B paradigms, relative to a C-D control paradigm, was evaluated under 4 conditions of meaningfulness ( M) which represented the 4 combinations of high (H) and low (L) levels of both stimulus and response M. The 8 Ss assigned to each paradigm within each M condition learned 2 8-pair lists of CVC trigrams by an adjusted-learning recall procedure. There was a consistent shift from positive transfer under L-response conditions to negative transfer under H-response conditions, with the magnitude of transfer in either direction being consistently less with L than with H stimuli. The effects of response M were attributed primarily to the increased importance of response learning relative to associative interference under L-response conditions. Several additional factors were suggested to account for the effects of stimulus M.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document