Paired-associate Lists Research Articles

Effect of Response Set on a Test of Unlearning

Relearning of only the responses of a list of paired-associates followed acquisition of a second list in order to determine whether the “unlearning” of the first list associations in an A-B, A-D transfer paradigm was due chiefly to a change in response set. A modified free recall test indicated that response relearning did not facilitate recall when performance was scored stringently, but improved recall significantly when leniently scored. This finding is inconsistent with recent evidence that first-list forgetting results from a loss of response set.

Intralist interference and imagery in deaf and hearing children

Children from populations lacking verbal proficiency were given an interference list of paired associates (high within-list stimulus similarity) or 1 of 2 noninterference lists (low stimulus similarity), under a standard control condition (pictorial items side by side) or an imagery condition (items depicted as interacting). In Experiment I, with deaf children 6–10 years old, the imagery condition facilitated performance on the interference list, mainly by reducing generalization errors. There was significant interference only in the control condition. Unexpectedly, imagery failed to improve performance on the noninterference lists. In Experiment II, with hearing children 4–5 years old, there was significant interference in both the imagery and the control condition. Imagery significantly facilitated performance in all lists, but did not reduce interference, apparently because it did not reduce generalization errors. Thus, imagery (a) facilitates performance by increasing the memorability of stimulus-response associations, and (b) reduces interference by reducing confusion among similar stimuli.

Imaginal and verbal mnemonics as related to paired-associate learning and directionality of associations

Using a paradigm where unmixed paired-associate lists of concrete and abstract pairs were first learned followed by a mixed list of both pair types, concrete pairs were markedly superior to abstract pairs, but showed less improvement from unmixed to mixed lists. Subsequent recall tests showed superior forward over backward recall and more unidirectional recall (forward or backward but not both) for abstract than concrete pairs (which showed associative symmetry). Abstract-pair performance was better for subjects reporting more sentence mnemonics, but use of images was uncorrelated with concrete-pair performance. Recall also improved significantly with increased number of prior recall tests, which also produced more sentence mnemonics for abstract pairs but did not change mnemonic strategies for concrete pairs.

Paired-associate learning with homograph stimuli

Acquisition of a paired-associate list was compared for lists having adjective responses and either homograph or nonhomograph stimuli. The two sets of stimuli were equated for mean length, frequency, and image value. Acquisition of the list with homograph stimuli was significantly slower, a result consistent with Martin’s encoding variability hypothesis.

Conditioning of Evaluative Meaning without Contingency or Demand Awareness

Summary To reduce contingency and demand awareness, evaluatively neutral CVCs (constant-vowel-consonants) were paired with CVCs of either positive evaluative meaning or negative evaluative meaning in a 24-item, mixed CVC-CVC and CVC-word, paired-associate (PA) list. The PA list was presented for either one, three, or five trials to a total of 63 Ss. After the PA list presentation, Ss rated 16 CVCs, including the stimulus CVCs from the PA list, on bipolar scales of evaluative meaning and then recalled PA pairs. Results showed a conditioning of meaning effect for Ss who viewed five trials of the PA list. Questionnaire data indicated that Ss were neither contingency nor demand aware. These results lend support to Staats' (14, 18) conditioning of meaning and attitude theory.

Conditional Recall and Bias in Memory Experiments

The use of recall measures conditionalized on other performance introduces the possibility of bias due to item and/or subject selection. Several possible cases are considered. While conditional recall measures are not impossible to interpret, there are restrictions that must be observed. Progress in the understanding of psychological phenomena usually results from the innovation of new analytic procedures that more clearly throw the phenomenon in question into focus. Most theories of verbal learning are concerned with processes presumed to act on the storage and retrieval of the individual verbal unit, while data analysis still most often depends upon gross measures of list acquisition, retention, and transfer. These measures may be quite insensitive to the processes of major theoretical interest, since performance is typically averaged across list items and subjects. A common means of conducting a more fine grained analysis is to conditionalize recall on some other performance measure. That is, the individual items are classified according to some performance criterion, then the items in the various classes are compared on some other performance criterion. For example, the subjects may be given a recognition test for the stimulus terms on a list of paired associates and then asked to recall a response to the stimuli (Martin, 1967a). The probability of a correct recall is then measured only for items for which correct recognition occurs.

Repetition of intentionally forgotten items

Subjects were presented lists of CVC-word paired associates. On some trials, a change in background color signalled subjects to forget the pairs occurring before the signal. On these trials, retention of the postsignal pairs was increased relative to those trials where no forget signal was given. On a few trials, one of the presignal pairs was repeated postsignal. Retention of the repeated items was increased relative to nonrepeated items; however, when an item was repeated but not tested, retention of the remaining items decreased relative to all other conditions, and the nontested repeated item frequently intruded as an error.

Strategy control and directed forgetting

Signals to subjects to forget presignal items (F-items) can completely eliminate the proactive interference postsignal items (R-items) would normally suffer from the F-items. To determine what happens to F-items, a strategy-control procedure was developed to test memory for F-items without destroying forget-signal credibility. The subjects saw short lists of paired associates, some containing a signal to forget presignal pairs. After each list, a single stimulus probe tested memory for the appropriate response. Tested pairs were always R-pairs unless a prearranged cue informed the subjects that the stimulus was from an F-pair. Although F-pairs did not interfere with recall of R-pairs, there was substantial recall of and interference among F-pairs. The results support a set differentiation mechanism of directed forgetting.

The use of visual and verbal memory processes by three-year-old children

Nonverbal (imagery) materials become more effective than verbal materials in aiding memory as age increases; indeed, children under five years have shown superior memory for verbal over nonverbal materials. The present study points out and changes four commonalities in the design of studies finding this latter relationship in an attempt to determine if nonverbal materials would prove superior to verbal ones. Four six-item paired-associate lists were presented individually using a study-test procedure. Presentation of the lists involved either pictures, words, or both. Recognition was tested either verbally or visually. Results indicated that the combined visual-verbal study materials produced performance superior to visual materials alone, which in turn were superior to verbal materials alone. Recognition of pictures was superior to recognition of words, regardless of mode of input. The relationship of these results to the procedural changes made are discussed, along with implications for current hypotheses of children's use of imagery.

APPLICATION OF BOWER'S ONE‐ELEMENT MODEL TO PAIRED‐ASSOCIATE LEARNING BY PIGEONS

Bower's (1961) all-or-none model of human paired-associate learning was applied to individual data supplied by three pigeons. When the center one of three keys was illuminated with red light or with three white dots in a vertical array on a black ground, pecking on the left key was reinforced. When the center key was lighted green or with a horizontal array of three white dots on a black ground, pecking on the right key was reinforced. The left and right keys were illuminated with white light. The task was considered to be analogous to learning a paired-associate list of four pairs involving four stimulus items and two response items. The model was evaluated by comparing the following model predictions with values obtained from each animal: trials-to-criterion, standard deviation of trials-to-criterion, standard deviation of errors-to-criterion, mean error runs, mean error runs of lengths one to four, and autocorrelations of errors of lags one to three. Most of the predictions based upon the model were in close agreement with the obtained data.

Backward Learning as a Function of Age

Groups of sixth, eighth, and tenth grade students learned eight pairs of paired-associate items followed by recall for the stimulus items. Each group learned a different list constructed from items of comparable meaningfulness determined by standardization for each group. As analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among groups, it was concluded that backward learning is not a variant of incidental learning of paired-associate lists.

Associative matching and cumulative proactive inhibition

On each of 4 successive days, the S learned a different paired-associate list. Twenty-four hours after learning each list, retention was measured by an associative-matching test in which stimulus and response terms were provided. Associative-matching performance did not differ across the four lists, i.e., there was no cumulative proactive inhibition.

Some Effects of Learning to a Set of Components on Stimulus Selection

After free learning of, or learning digit responses to, a set of components (letters from a single position in consonant trigrams), the subjects learned a paired-associate list with the trigrams as stimuli. Free learning of the components had no effect on stimulus selection from the trigrams. There was no evidence that subjects changed functional stimuli to avoid negative transfer from learning different responses to the components and their corresponding trigrams. Learning the same responses to them produced positive transfer from the components to the trigrams, but no evidence of learning the responses to the additional components.

Over-all list facilitation and the von Restorff effect with nonnoxious isolation stimuli.

To demonstrate list facilitation with nonnoxious stimuli, this study used 5 unique nonnoxious stimuli as isolates randomly distributed in a paired-associate list. Lists of 20 identical low-association word-pairs were presented in 3 groups: (1) Control—all 20 pairs in standard format, (2) Control—all 20 in changed format, and (3) Experimental—5 pairs in changed format randomly distributed among 20. 18 male college students (6 per group) received 4 standard PA acquisition trials. Statistically significant findings were: (1) experimental exceeded controls in total list performance, (2) format-changed items (isolates) exceeded control counterparts, (3) standard stimuli in experimental lists exceeded control counterparts, and (4) items immediately preceding and following isolates exceeded others (spread-of-isolation effect). The results were interpreted in terms of OR theory.

Negative transfer as a function of IQ and mode of presentation in paired-associate learning

The purpose of the study was to investigate negative transfer effects in paired-associate learning in normal (IQs 90–110) and retarded (IQs 60–80) children. Seventy-two Ss, ages 11–13, learned two paired-associate lists by one of three modes of presentation: memory drum, slides or tape recorder. A Modified Free Recall procedure was employed to test for recall of List 1 items. The results indicated that the retarded Ss took significantly longer than the normal to learn both lists, made significantly more intrusion errors in List 2, and recalled significantly more List 1 items. The results were interpreted as supporting an inhibition deficit theory of mental retardation. Significant differences between modes of presentation were also demonstrated. Lists presented by tape recorder required fewer trials to criterion than lists presented by slides, which in turn required fewer trials than those presented by memory drum.

Partial information and choice behavior in differential reward magnitude learning

Ss were first trained on a word-number paired-associate list and then given testing on a two-choice differential reward learning paradigm. One of the two words in each pair had been used in the paired-associate training, and the number of points associated with the word was the same as during paired-associate learning. The other member of each pair was new and could have either more or fewer points than the known member of the pair. Speed of learning to choose the higher valued member in these pairs was directly related to amount of reward.

Formal and semantic similarity of stimuli and recall time

Seven study-test trials were given on paired-associate lists varying in intralist stimulus similarity. Stimuli rhymed, were from the same conceptual category, or were dissimilar. Study time was constant at 2 sec/item, but time allowed for recall on paced test trials was either 1 or 3 sec. At the faster rate, the formally similar stimuli produced more interference than did the semantically similar stimuli. There was also some evidence that semantic similarity did not produce much interference early in learning. At the slower rates, the two high-similarity conditions produced substantial but equal amounts of interference. The results are consistent with a sequential coding hypothesis.

Semantic and imaginal factors in learning as related to age

Sixty subjects apiece from third and sixth grade populations were given a twelve-item paired-associate list to learn under either regular or imagery instructions. The paired associates were presented in sentences or phrases which represented varying degrees of semantic correspondence between study and test trials. It was found that the semantic manipulations influenced learning similarly in the two grades, while imagery instructions produced different effects at each grade level.

Distance from a massed double-presentation or blank trial as a factor in paired associate list learning

Subjects learned paired associate lists containing either blank trials or items which received massed repetitions. Test items were placed at varied distances from these events. The distributed practice effect was demonstrated and did not interact with presentation rate. Performance on items which immediately preceded a massed double-presentation was not superior to performance on items farther away, and an immediate repetition was more beneficial than following an item with a blank trial. These results are inconsistent with the notion that both an immediate repetition and a blank trial serve to provide blank time during which Ss rehearse several preceding items.

Imagery and multiple-list paired-associate learning in young children

Preschool children learned 4 paired-associate lists, with the same stimuli in all lists, and then were tested for retention of all lists. Two variables were combined factorially: (a) stimulus and response shown in conjunetive relation (control) vs shown in mutual interaction (“compound imagery”), and (b) response item shown only during acquisition of the list in which it occurred vs shown in that list and all subsequent lists. Acquisition was facliitated by imagery whether or not the responses were repeated, and was inhibited by repetition of responses in both the imagery and control conditions (i.e., Imagery and Response Treatment had significant main effects and did not interact). Retention was not affected by imagery but was facilitated by response-repetition, presumably because of the extra learning possible with repetition of responses. The facilitation was limited to the primacy position; with single-list presentation of responses there was a recency effect. Thus, “built-up” images (the repeated-response Imagery condition) yield maximum performance when acquisition and retention are equally important. The use of such images might prevent interference.