Forgetting of verbal paired associates after low degrees of learning

Runquist, Willard N.; Snyder, Ronald A.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(69)80096-4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, in most previous research examining the repetition effect in healthy individuals, retention periods have repeatedly supported the repetition effect. [4][5][6][7] However, results of the current study indicated a trend for MS subjects who received relatively more learning trials to recall fewer stimuli than those who received fewer learning trials. Interestingly, the repetition effect was also not observed in the healthy control sample.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can the repetition effect maximize learning in multiple sclerosis?

Chiaravalloti

Demaree²,

Gaudino

et al. 2003

Clin Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Therefore, numerous studies using a variety of test stimuli, learning trials, and retention periods have repeatedly supported the repetition effect. [4][5][6][7] Moreover, except for research in which a oor effect was found (e.g., ref. 5), the impact of the number of learning trials on forgetting rate was never signi cant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the repetition effect maximize learning in multiple sclerosis?

Chiaravalloti

Demaree²,

Gaudino

et al. 2003

Clin Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the fact that the effects of some variables depend upon prior testing (Tulving & Watkins, 1974) and that the effects of other variables disappear with repeated testing (Runquist & Snyder, 1969) underscores the possible role of these processes in determining forgetting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cue discrimination and forgetting

1981

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects learned paired associate lists in which word triads were paired with nouns to a partial criterion; they were then given both an immediate and a I-week delayed recognition test for discrimination among the triads and a cued recall test. Recall after 1 week was slightly poorer than that occurring immediately, but it was unaffected by various patterns of element identity among the triads. Discrimination improved somewhat over the I-week interval. Further experiments showed that the immediate test was responsible for both reducing forgetting and improving discrimination, but both effects were independent of identity structure. Forgetting cannot be attributed to loss of differentiation of cues.The primary purpose of this research was to examine the role of discrimination among cues in producing forgetting. The design necessary to accomplish this is straightforward. Subjects learn paired associate lists varying in similarity among cues and then return to the laboratory 1 week later to be retested. The testing procedure consists of a test of associative recall and an independent assessment of discrimination among the items composing the stimulus set.Several experiments from the University of Alberta laboratory have shown a relationship between the number and position of identical elements in the cue terms of paired associates and the difficulty of learning the associates (Runquist, 1972). The most common interpretation of these effects has been in terms of learning discriminations among cues (Anderson & Bower, 1973;Gibson, 1940). It is not clear, however, whether element identity (similarity) affects forgetting. The bulk of the evidence has denied any effect (Underwood, 1961). However, Joinson and Runquist (1968) found that similarity retarded forgetting, and Battig (1966) has persistently maintained that interference during acquisition should facilitate long-term retention.Irrespective of the effect of similarity on forgetting, it is important to determine whether discrimination among cues, once established, is retained over long time intervals or whether it shows the forgetting characteristic of associative information. We might add that forgetting is not a foregone conclusion. Ellis and Daniel (1971) have shown that the ability to distinguish new nonsense shapes from well-studied prototypes does not deteriorate over a 28-day interval. It is possible that intralist discriminations show the same stability. EXPERIMENT 1 MethodThe experiment consisted of five parts and was identical for all subjects. There were four different conditions, but these were This work was supported by Grant A088 from the National Research Council of Canada. James Tousignant, Caroline Renney , and Carrie MacWilliams aided in the collection of the data. defined only by the structure of the list learned. The first part of the experiment was a practice task, the purpose of which was to familiarize the subject with the testing procedure. Subjects were given study-test sequences on six pairs composed of a geometrical form and a two-digit n...

show abstract

Normal forgetting of verbal lists as a function of their degree of learning.

Slamecka

McElree²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

161

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we examined the fundamental question of how degree of learning affects normal forgetting. Experiment 1 varied learning of categorized lists and tested retention at three intervals. Across all measures, study trials affected intercepts but not slopes of forgetting functions. Experiment 2 varied learning of paired-associate lists and tested retention at the same three intervals. Across all measures, trials influenced intercepts but not forgetting slopes. Experiment 3 varied learning of sentence lists and tested verbatim and gist memory at the same intervals, Again, trials affected intercepts but not slopes. The overall interpretation was that the forgetting of verbal lists is independent of their degree of learning. No current theories of memory predict these outcomes, but neither does the pattern of results disconfirm any theory.The argument is made that present memory theorizing neglects almost entirely the central problem of normal forgetting.This research examines the effect of degree of learning on the amount of normal longterm forgetting of supraspan verbal lists. Degree of learning is a fundamental variable that reliably influences memory performance. Among phenomena that qualify as well-established facts in this area is that retention increases with more intentional study trials or study time. This is so widely recognized that it is unnecessary to document the myriad sources, from Ebbinghaus to the present, that constitute its overwhelming empirical base. For expository convenience only, manipulations of study trials or time that influence performance levels will be referred to as manipulations of degree of learning. This is intended, in a theoretically noncommittal sense, to be applicable regardless of differing views about the underlying nature of learning.In sharp contrast to the certainty about its effect on long-term retention, there is considerably less hard information on how the degree of learning affects normal forgetting, that is, forgetting that occurs simply with the

show abstract

Forgetting of verbal paired associates after low degrees of learning

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Can the repetition effect maximize learning in multiple sclerosis?

Can the repetition effect maximize learning in multiple sclerosis?

Cue discrimination and forgetting

Normal forgetting of verbal lists as a function of their degree of learning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About