Recent research demonstrates a spacing effect in inductive learning. Spacing different individual exemplars apart in time, rather than massing them together, aids in the learning of categories. Experiment 1 examined whether it is interleaving or temporal spacing that is critical to the spacing effect in the situation wherethe memory load is high, and the results favored interleaving. Experiment 2 examined the effect of the difficulty of the category discrimination on presentation style (massed vs. spaced) in inductive learning, and the results demonstrated that spacing (i.e., interleaving of exemplars from different categories) is advantageous for lowdiscriminabilty categories, whereas massing is more effective for high-discriminability categories. In contrast to these performance measures, massing was judged by participants to be more effective than spacing in both discriminability conditions, even when performance for low-discriminability categories showed the opposite.Keywords Spacing effect . Inductive learning . Category learning . Category induction . Category discrimination It has long been known that repetitions of items further apart in time produce better memory than do repetitions close together in

In the non-color-word Stroop task, university students' response latencies were longer for low-frequency than for higher frequency target words. Visual identity primes facilitated color naming in groups reading the prime silently or processing it semantically (Experiment 1) but did not when participants generated a rhyme of the prime (Experiment 3). With auditory identity primes, generating an associate or a rhyme of the prime produced interference (Experiments 2 and 3). Color-naming latencies were longer for nonwords than for words (Experiment 4). There was a small long-term repetition benefit in color naming for low-frequency words that had been presented in the lexical decision task (Experiment 5). Facilitation of word recognition speeds color naming except when phonological activation of the base word increases response competition.

No abstract

The role of orthographic processing skill (OPS) in reading has aroused the interest of many developmental researchers. Despite observations by Vellutino that current measures of OPS primarily are indicators of reading (and spelling) achievement, OPS commonly is distinguished from both reading achievement and phonological skills. An analysis of the reading literature indicates that there is no theory in which OPS meaningfully plays a role as an independent skill or causal factor in reading acquisition. Rather, OPS indexes fluent word identification and spelling knowledge, and there is no evidence to refute the hypothesis that its development relies heavily on phonological processes. Results of correlational studies and reader group comparisons (a) cannot inform about on‐line processes and (b) may be parsimoniously explained in terms of phonological skills, reading experience, unmeasured language abilities and methodological factors, without implying that OPS is an aetiologically separable skill. Future research would profit from the investigation in experimental studies of the nature and development of orthographic representations.

No abstract