Intermodal transfer in a paired-associates learning task.

The transfer of information across sensory modalities

“…mediational position can be interpreted as evidence in support of the invariant features hypothesis. That Holmgren, Arnoult, and Manning (1966) concur in this opinion is indicated by their statement, "At the present time there seems to be no way to design a critical experiment which would allow one to choose between the perceptual model and the mediational model." Under the conditions of the present study, however, it was argued that a demonstration of intersensory transfer of specific information would provide weak support for the invariant features hypothesis, while evidence for the invariancy of learned information about population characteristics, across sensory systems, would have provided even stronger support for the notion that there are sources of information not restricted to input modality.…”

“…While the mediational hypothesis has been invoked as a post hoc explanation of intersensory equivalence of stimuli (Blank & Bridger, 1966;Gaydos, 1956;Holmgren, Arnoult, & Manning, 1966) have not been conducted is in no doubt due, in part, to the fact that such training would also provide S opportunities to learn about dimensions of information invariant to input modality, and also due to the argument that associatively acquired mediational responsesare epiphenomenal.…”

“…Although this research strategy is reasonable on the surface, it has not produced unambiguous fmdings (Krauthamer, 1959). A second procedure is to give Ss practice with unfamiliar form stimuli via one sensory modality, followed by a task where the "same" stimuli are presented via another modality (e.g., Gaydos, 1956;Holmgren, Arnoult, & Manning, 1966;Shaffer & Ellis, in press), with the assumption that the use of stimuli not previously experienced by S minimizes the likelihood of common mediating responses being associated to intersensory analogues. This research strategy is used in the present study by training Ss to classify unfamiliar dot patterns into a priori defined conceptual classes, presented either haptically or visually, followed by a similar task where the stimulus analogues plus other patterns are presented via the other modality, visually or haptically, respectively.…”

Cross Modal Functioning and Reading Achievement

“…Freides (1974) cites evidence (e.g. Blank, Altman & Bridger, 1968;Blank & Bridger, 1964, 1966Blank & Klig, 1970;Cole, Chorover & Ettlinger, 1961;Holmgren, Arnoult & Manning, 1966;Houck, Gradner & Ruhl, 1965;Krauthamer, 1968;Pick, Pick & Thomas, 1966;Weissman & Crockett, 1957) which tend to indicate that while intersensory transfer research has a wide diversity of objectives, methods and subjects, there is ample evidence suggesting that transfer across modalities is dependent upon the specific modality involved, the response requirements of the task, and the degree of similarity between the training and transfer tasks.…”

Asymmetric transfer of prototype information between vision and audition.

“…In most studies of cross-modal transfer of pattern information the observer is required to transfer information about specific individual patterns or forms across modalities (see review by Friedes, 1974). For example, Holmgren, Arnoult, and Manning (1966) had subjects learn a paired-associate label to a pattern in one modality (visual or auditory) and transfer this information to the opposing modality. Shaffer and Ellis (1974) used a similar task to examine transfer from vision to touch.…”