Embedded figures, learning, and recall: a note on Long's paper.

Abstract

Long ( 1962) has found relationships between performance in an embedded figures test (EFT) and original learning (OL) and retention on a RI task. The common factor in these performances is asserted to be Field-Articulation (FA) which is defined as the capacity to articulate, or differentiate, complex stimulus fields (Long, 1962). Except for the positive relationship between OL and EFT, Long's findings confirm the results of an earlier investigation by Gollin and Baron (1954). The relationship between EFT scores and retention scores in the two investigations is similar despite differences in training and testing methods, in materials, and in sex of Ss. The difference in the relationship between EFT and OL is likely to be a function of the nature of the OL list: Long's list consisted of highly similar words, while Gollin and Baron used a list of low associacion nonsense syllables. From the very outset of training the word lisc may be assumed to tap FA since the meaningfulness of the words is likely to impart some field character to the list. The low-association nonsense syllables on the other hand constitute an aggregate of disconnected stimuli with little intra-list relatedness. As the nonsense list is learned, it is likely that the list increasingly assumes field properties and thus serves as a good test of FA when it is again presented in the retention tasks. The failure to observe an association between FA and OL seems to strengthen the value of FA as an inferred abiliry. If FA were related to everything, its utility as a selective predictor would diminish.