Motor Learning and Retention in Normals and Defectives

Abstract

Evidence for the generalization that fast learners retain more than do slow learners is equivocal. McGeoch (1942, p. 387) offered as rational support for such a relation the notion that learning and retention are continuous processes. Early empirical studies concerned with this issue have been summarized by Gillette (1936). More recently, Underwood (1954) has shown that rate of forgetting does not differ in slow and fast learners when associative strength of original learning is held constant. Leavia ( 1945) found the relation to be dependent upon the duration of the retention interval. Rank-order correlations for nonsense syllables and rotary pursuit changed from positive to negative for retention intervals ranging from 1 to 70 days. For example, coefficients for rotary pursuit, using last learning trial and first relearning trial scores, were .54,.-.06, -.68, and -.73 for retention tests on Day 1, 7, 28, and 70, respectively. Leavitt (1945, p. 140) concluded that this trend holds for . . . absolute amount retained, amount retained relative to original score, or savings. Obviously, variables other than learning rate may influence amount retained. These could include conditions operative during the retention interval, e.g., retroactive inhibition, as well as inhibitory factors generated during learning. In Hull's terms (1952), reactive inhibition (IB) could build up and/or dissipate differentially in slow and fast learners, thus complicating an assessment of the learning-retention relationship. The main purpose of the present study was to compare motor skill retention in normal and defective Ss. The test of normals for retention 1 and 28 days after learning bears upon Leavitt's findings. The experimental design also allows comparative analyses of motor skill acquisition, warm up, and reminiscence for these Ss.