1964
DOI: 10.1037/h0044967
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimal paired-associate learning.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1964
1964
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are, however, some differences between this task and the paired-associate task typically used to study cued STM (e.g., Peterson & Peterson, 1962). There are at least two ways to remember an item correctly in our experimental situation: (1) by direct association between a picture and a location on the table, and (2) by counting back from the most recent item and using interitem associations to determine how far back an item occurred.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are, however, some differences between this task and the paired-associate task typically used to study cued STM (e.g., Peterson & Peterson, 1962). There are at least two ways to remember an item correctly in our experimental situation: (1) by direct association between a picture and a location on the table, and (2) by counting back from the most recent item and using interitem associations to determine how far back an item occurred.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the Brown-Peterson test (Peterson and Peterson 1962) to test a variation in the short-term memory span of the subjects after a booth exposure. Subjects were given a series of trigrams of letters; each trigram was followed by a number countdown challenge, after which subjects were asked to recall the trigram.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%