Learning multiple lists at the same time in the Hebb repetition effect.

Saint‐Aubin, Jean; Guérard, Katherine; Fiset, Sylvain; Losier, Marie-Claire

doi:10.1037/cep0000030

Cited by 10 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As currently formulated, both models learn only from presentation and not from recall. Saint-Aubin, Guérard, Fiset, and Losier ( 2015 ) described how both models are also capable of learning more than one list at a time. Indeed, Page and Norris ( 2009 ) presented simulations of learning two lists.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This ensured that comparisons between the sequences at different stages of learning were not confounded with time. Existing data had indicated that participants have little difficulty in learning two lists simultaneously, even when those lists are constructed by permuting the same set of items (Kalm, Davis, & Norris, 2013 ; Saint-Aubin, Guérard, Fiset, & Losier, 2015 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recall is not necessary for verbal sequence learning

Kalm

Norris

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether overt recall of to-be-remembered material accelerates learning is important in a wide range of real-world learning settings. In the case of verbal sequence learning, previous research has proposed that recall either is necessary for verbal sequence learning (Cohen & Johansson Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 139–143, 1967; Cunningham, Healy, & Williams Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 575–597, 1984), or at least contributes significantly to it (Glass, Krejci, & Goldman Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 189–199, 1989; Oberauer & Meyer Memory, 17, 774–781, 2009). In contrast, here we show that the amount of previous spoken recall does not predict learning and is not necessary for it. We suggest that previous research may have underestimated participants’ learning by using suboptimal performance measures, or by using manual or written recall. However, we show that the amount of spoken recall predicted how much interference from other to-be-remembered sequences would be observed. In fact, spoken recall mediated most of the error learning observed in the task. Our data support the view that the learning of overlapping auditory–verbal sequences is driven by learning the phonological representations and not the articulatory motor responses. However, spoken recall seems to reinforce already learned representations, whether they are correct or incorrect, thus contributing to a participant identifying a specific stimulus as either “learned” or “new” during the presentation phase.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recall is not necessary for verbal sequence learning

Kalm

Norris

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Namely, although the Hebb and the Filler sequences were still interleaved, there was only one Filler sequence following two successive but distinct Hebb sequences, each containing different sequences of syllables. Previous studies have demonstrated successful concurrent learning of several different Hebb sequences (Page, Cumming, Norris, McNeil, & Hitch, 2013;Saint-Aubin, Guérard, Fiset, & Losier, 2015). As a result, the order of the presentation of Hebb and Filler trials was: Hebb sequence 1, Hebb sequence 2, Filler sequence.…”

Section: Experiments 3 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Implicit versus explicit mechanisms of vocabulary learning and consolidation

Sobczak

Gaskell

2019

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has suggested that integration of novel words into lexical competition benefits from a consolidation delay containing a period of sleep (Dumay & Gaskell, 2007). However, a recent study argued that learning novel words via a relatively implicit Hebb repetition task leads to later lexical integration independently of sleep (Szmalec, Page, & Duyck, 2012). It is not clear whether this different time course of lexical integration is a consequence of the learning method chosen, as opposed to other between study differences. Four experiments directly compared the learning of novel words using explicit and implicit methods, namely phoneme monitoring on isolated tokens vs. Hebb repetition of syllable sequences. The impact of the learning was tested at a range of later time-points using two tests of explicit knowledge (recognition and recall) and a test of lexical integration (pause detection on related existing words). Between experiments, we also manipulated exposure frequency, the impact of syllable grouping cues in Hebb repetition and the level of mismatch between novel and real words. The results suggested that learning novel words via Hebb sequence repetition does not confer a benefit on lexical integration prior to or after sleep. We observed an engagement in lexical competition only in the case where a good level of explicit training was followed by a consolidation delay. Recognition and recall performance was generally poorer for Hebb learning. We conclude that Hebb-style implicit learning of words does not allow consolidation processes to be bypassed in lexical integration.

show abstract

“…For example, most experiments using the Hebb repetition task used digits (Cumming, Page, & Norris, 2003;Oberauer & Meyer, 2009), letters (Cunningham et al, 1984;Kalm & Norris, 2016), words (Page et al, 2006;Page et al, 2013), or pictures of well-known objects (Mosse & Jarrold, 2008) as stimuli. Moreover, although language learning implies the auditory perception and a verbal production of words, most studies departed from the natural context of language learning by using visually presented sequences (Saint-Aubin, Guérard, Fiset, & Losier, 2015;Szmalec et al, 2009) or written recall (Hitch et al, 2009;Oberauer & Meyer, 2009;Page et al, 2013). Finally, previous studies with verbal materials had minimized the overlap between the repeated list and the nonrepeated lists (Hitch et al, 2009;Page et al, 2013), whereas words from all languages are made from a limited set of phonemes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of overt language production in the Hebb repetition effect

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hebb repetition effect (Hebb, 1961) occurs when recall performance improves for a list that is repeated during a serial-recall task. This effect is considered a good experimental analogue to language learning. Our objective was to evaluate the role of overt language production in language learning by manipulating recall direction during a Hebb repetition paradigm. In each trial, seven nonsense syllables were presented auditorily. Participants had to orally recall the items either in the presentation order or in reverse order. One sequence was repeated every third trial. In Experiment 1, we compared learning from a group that had recalled the items in their presentation order to learning from a group that had recalled the items in the reverse order. The two groups yielded similar learning rates. In Experiment 2, recall direction was varied between trials. The learning rate was not affected when recall direction varied between trials, suggesting a limited role of overt language production in language learning.

show abstract

Learning multiple lists at the same time in the Hebb repetition effect.

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Recall is not necessary for verbal sequence learning

Recall is not necessary for verbal sequence learning

Implicit versus explicit mechanisms of vocabulary learning and consolidation

The role of overt language production in the Hebb repetition effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About