Re-evaluation of the meaningfulness of all possible CVC trigrams.

Archer, E. James

doi:10.1037/h0093758

Cited by 499 publications

(268 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

266

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It even appears from this point of view as if the differences between sense and nonsense material were not nearly as great as one would be inclined a priori to imagine. (p. 23) Others who followed in Ebbinghaus's footsteps measured differences in the meaningfulness of nonsense syllables (e.g., Archer, 1960;Glaze, 1928;Hull, 1933) in order to afford researchers better experimental control over these presumed variations in learning (see also Jenkins, 1985). Even the plainest materials seem to require an effort to find meaningfulness in order to comprehend and remember them (e.g., Prytulak, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between comprehension and memory? Ebbinghaus (1885Ebbinghaus ( /1964 began the scientific study of memory by attempting to avoid this question. By studying memory for three-letter trigrams under controlled experimental conditions, he assumed that he would not have to be concerned about the variability in how subjects understood or related to the stimuli. Nonetheless, Ebbinghaus noted that the lists of syllables he memorized exhibit very important and almost incomprehensible variations as to the ease or difficulty with which they are learned. It even appears from this point of view as if the differences between sense and nonsense material were not nearly as great as one would be inclined a priori to imagine. (p. 23) Others who followed in Ebbinghaus's footsteps measured differences in the meaningfulness of nonsense syllables (e.g., Archer, 1960;Glaze, 1928;Hull, 1933) in order to afford researchers better experimental control over these presumed variations in learning (see also Jenkins, 1985). Even the plainest materials seem to require an effort to find meaningfulness in order to comprehend and remember them (e.g., Prytulak, 1971).In contrast to Ebbinghaus's (1885/1964) approach, Bartlett (1932) presumed a direct relationship between processes involved in comprehension and acts of remembering. Specifically, Bartlett proposed that individuals engaged in a process of "effort after meaning," of which he wrote, it is fitting to speak of every human cognitive reaction-perceiving, imaging, remembering, thinking, and reasoning-as an effort after meaning. Certain of the tendencies which the subject brings with him into the situation with which he is called upon to deal are utilized so as to make his reaction the "easiest," or the least disagreeable, or the quickest and least obstructed that is at the time possible. When we try to discover how this is done we find that always it is by an effort to connect what is given with something else. (p. 44) In experiencing the world, humans presumably bring their past knowledge to bear on understanding current happenings. When it comes to remembering past occurrences, Bartlett argued that people attempt to make their recollections conform to cultural expectations, prior background knowledge, or the current context.To directly examine effort after meaning as it relates to memory, Auble and Franks (1978) developed an ingenious experimental paradigm in which subjects heard and later attempted to recall ambiguous sentences, such as "The clothes were ruined because the sign vanished," that were presented with or without disambiguating cues (i.e., wet paint). Where cues were provided, their conditions of presentation varied. In a control condition, the cue was meaningfully embedded within the sentence (i.e., "The clothes were ruined because the wet paint sign vanished"). In other conditions, the sentence preceded the cue. In four experiments, we examined free recall of ambiguous sentences with or without corresponding cues to facilitate comprehension, using A...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further restriction was that the task must not elicit associated implicit verbal responses. The subjects were given stacks of cards on which were printed nonsense syllables of low association value (Archer, 1960) and numbers. They were asked to read through the cards, which were shuffled each day so that order was never the same.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant Reinforcement of an Autonomic Response: Two Studies

Gavalas

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two successive studies were conducted to determine the possibility of operant reinforcement of nonspecific galvanic skin resistance responses. In the first study, with five experimental and three control subjects who served for 20 to 30 min a day for 10 days, all experimental subjects learned to emit more nonspecific galvanic skin resistance responses than their ad hoc matched controls. In a second study, nine experimental and nine control subjects were matched for first-day levels of reactivity and yoked for operant reinforcement schedules. Significant differences between the two groups were found on the last day of conditioning and during extinction. Six of the nine experimental subjects showed higher cumulative rate curves than their matched and yoked controls. The concomitant measures (basal resistance, heart rate, etc.) all supported this finding. It was suggested that operant reinforcement of autonomic response tends to maintain a certain level of responding in contrast to persistent adaptation in the control group.As early as 1938, operant reinforcement of an autonomically controlled response (vasoconstriction) was attempted. The results were "inconclusive" (Skinner, 1938). Skinner was explicitly concerned with this distinction in the development of his system; he distinguished operants and respondents on the basis of their correlation with an observable, external stimulus and not on the more commonly accepted basis of the autonomic-skeletal division. In forcer so that an increased rate of autonomic responding cannot be attributed to the stimulating effects of the reinforcer, and, (2) controlling for, or eliminating the effect of mediating skeletal responses. If the autonomic response is produced by an intervening skeletal response, the reinforcement may be acting directly on the skeletal response and parasitically reinforcing the autonomic response.Few studies have dealt adequately with these problems. Kimmel and Hill (1960) ProcedureSubjects served for 10 consecutive days. The first two were operant level days; on the third day, the reinforcer was introduced and presented randomly for 10 min. Reinforcement began on the last half of the third day's session and continued through the next four days. The last three days were extinction sessions. All sessions were 20 min long except for the last two, which were extended to 30 min.Control subjects followed the same procedure as experimental subjects except that they received "random", noncontingent reinforcers during the four-and-a-half days of learning. Pilot work showed that an experimental subject was likely to receive 25-30 reinforcers per 20-min session. Time of delivery of the reinforcer was obtained from random number tables. No reinforcer was administered within 15 sec of another to avoid reinforcement of a reinforcer-elicited response. Average number of reinforcers per day for the experimental group was 23; for the control group 27. An upper limit of 90 sec between reinforcers was arbitrarily given to the control group. Thus, the two groups were f...

show abstract

“…All Ss were presented a nine-pair PA list with two-syllable adjectives as stimuli and high meaningful nonsense syllables (XAV = 93.2%, Archer, 1960) as responses. Intralist similarity was minimized.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative and free recall of paired-associates under conditions of response articulation and % OSM partial reinforcement

Goulet

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free and associative (S-R) response recall was compared under % OS~1 partial reinforcement (100%, 50%, 25%) Kausler, 1963; Goulet & 8olso, 1966;Schulz, 1965; for % OSM). However, the results of these studies have been inconclusive in regard to isolating the specific mechanisms by which partial reinforcement has its negative effect. The present experiment attempted to delineate the source of the negative effectof% OSMpartial reinforcement.Two hypotheses have been put forth to explain the effect of % OSM partial reinforcement. Schulz (1965) Psychon. Sci., 1966, Vol. 5 (6) L. R. GOULETWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY noted that the manipulation of % OSM should affect the associative phase of PA learning but not the response learning phase in that Ss' opportunity to learn the responses is not changed. Goulet & 8olso (1966), however, stated that the effect of % OSM, affected response learning indirectly through Ss' decreased attention to responses not paired with stimuli on particular trials. To support the latter hypothesis, Goulet & Solso had Ss learn a PA list where half of the pairs were learned under 25% OSM partial reinforcement, with the remaining half learned under 100% OSM. After four and eight trials Ss were given two unpaced recall tasks, a free recall task involving the response recall without the aid of the stimulus terms and an associative recall task which involved presenting a list of the stimuli to S with instructions to recall the responses and pair them with the appropriate stimulus terms. Replicating previous studies, a pronounced effect of%OSMon associative learning was found. Also, a parallel, negative effect was found for the free response recall measure, an effect not expected in that Ss' opportunity for response learning was not changed by the different % OSM treatments. These results suggested that % OSM, at least in part, affected PA learning indirectly through the response learning stage. The present experiment tested this hypothesis by testing for free recall and associative or S-R recall of responses under conditions where Ss were or were not forced to attend to the responses.Under the conditions where Ss I attention to responses was (W) required, a null effect of % OSM on free recall was expected, with a substantially reduced effect of % OSM on associative recall. Under conditions where Ss' attention to responses was not (WN) required, parallel negative effects of % OSM were expected for both free and associative recall. MethodExperimental Design. 1. Sixty general psychology students were randomly assigned to treatments of a 2 by 2 by 3 mixed factional design, with type of recall (free or associative) and type of attention (W, WN) asbetween-S factors and % OSM (100%, 50%, 25%) as a within-S or mixed-list factor. The recall measures, as mentioned previously, involved having Ss recall all responses in the list without stimulus cues (free response recall) or providing the list of stimulus terms to S with instructions to recall the responses and pair them with the appropriate stimuli. Attention ...

show abstract

Re-evaluation of the meaningfulness of all possible CVC trigrams.

Abstract: Materials. There are 2,480 possible combinations of three letters of the Roman alphabet which meet the restrictions mentioned above. These trigrams were arranged in eight groups of 300 and one group of 80.

Cited by 499 publications

References 2 publications

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Operant Reinforcement of an Autonomic Response: Two Studies

Associative and free recall of paired-associates under conditions of response articulation and % OSM partial reinforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About