2004
DOI: 10.1300/j018v27n01_12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adjusted Spaced Retrieval Training

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
2
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…One study was classified as level II evidence (Davis et al, 2001), four studies were level III-2 evidence (Cherry et al, 1999;Cherry and Simmons-D'Gerolamo, 2000;2005), two studies were considered to be level III-3 evidence (Hochhalter et al, 2004;2005), and two studies were level IV evidence (Abrahams and Camp, 1993;McKitrick and Camp, 1993). Six studies (one case study; one between-participants design; three withinparticipants design; and one randomized placebocontrolled crossover design) taught participants the names of previously known but forgotten objects (Abrahams and Camp, 1993;Cherry et al, 1999;Cherry and Simmons-D'Gerolamo, 2000;2005;Davis et al, 2001), while two studies used a within-participants design to explore the effectiveness of SR training in teaching participants the names of previously unknown and unfamiliar pills (Hochhalter et al, 2004;2005, Experiment 1). Moreover, McKitrick and Camp (1993) used SR to teach one participant the names of both previously known and unknown objects.…”
Section: Object-name Associationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One study was classified as level II evidence (Davis et al, 2001), four studies were level III-2 evidence (Cherry et al, 1999;Cherry and Simmons-D'Gerolamo, 2000;2005), two studies were considered to be level III-3 evidence (Hochhalter et al, 2004;2005), and two studies were level IV evidence (Abrahams and Camp, 1993;McKitrick and Camp, 1993). Six studies (one case study; one between-participants design; three withinparticipants design; and one randomized placebocontrolled crossover design) taught participants the names of previously known but forgotten objects (Abrahams and Camp, 1993;Cherry et al, 1999;Cherry and Simmons-D'Gerolamo, 2000;2005;Davis et al, 2001), while two studies used a within-participants design to explore the effectiveness of SR training in teaching participants the names of previously unknown and unfamiliar pills (Hochhalter et al, 2004;2005, Experiment 1). Moreover, McKitrick and Camp (1993) used SR to teach one participant the names of both previously known and unknown objects.…”
Section: Object-name Associationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…31 Numerous studies have applied SR to semantic memory to help people with AD remember various types of information: the name, face and/or role associations of unfamiliar people and/or personally relevant people (eg, family members and care staff) . ), 25,32,33,19,35,34,36,37,18,21 common personal and household objects, 38,39,40 names of medication, 41,42 and word lists. 43 SR has also been effective in supporting procedural memory in AD, including activities of daily living (ADL) and independent activities of daily living (IADL) such as how to eat safely, 6,22,44,45 everyday multi-step activities, such as using the oven, preparing tea, setting an alarm clock, 46 using mobile devices and managing voicemail, 47 putting things back where they belong, and following a sequence of instructions to guide behaviours.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Caso haja erros, o pesquisador pode fazer a correção da palavra e o intervalo da tentativa seguinte retrocede ao último intervalo, anterior àquele em que ocorreu o erro (e.g., Jang et al, 2015). Outros estudos testaram os efeitos de intervalos regulares entre as tentativas (e.g., 10s, 10s, 10s...), em comparação com intervalos ajustados (crescentes) (e.g, Balota et al, 2006;Hawley, Cherry, Boudreaux, & Jackson, 2008;Hochhalter, Bakke, Holub, & Overmier, 2004). Os resultados desses estudos comparativos não são uniformes: enquanto alguns não encontram diferenças entre os tipos de intervalo (Balota et al, 2006;Hochhalter, 2004), outros verificaram o melhor desempenho dos idosos em procedimentos com intervalos crescentes (e.g., Hawley et al, 2008 O FO consiste em fornecer ao participante no início da tarefa determinada dica, e ao longo da tarefa, retirar de forma progressiva a dica, até que nenhuma dica seja fornecida (Glisky, Schacter, & Tulving, 1986).…”
Section: Um Dos Procedimentos Mais Investigados Nas úLtimas Duas Décaunclassified
“…Outros estudos testaram os efeitos de intervalos regulares entre as tentativas (e.g., 10s, 10s, 10s...), em comparação com intervalos ajustados (crescentes) (e.g, Balota et al, 2006;Hawley, Cherry, Boudreaux, & Jackson, 2008;Hochhalter, Bakke, Holub, & Overmier, 2004). Os resultados desses estudos comparativos não são uniformes: enquanto alguns não encontram diferenças entre os tipos de intervalo (Balota et al, 2006;Hochhalter, 2004), outros verificaram o melhor desempenho dos idosos em procedimentos com intervalos crescentes (e.g., Hawley et al, 2008 O FO consiste em fornecer ao participante no início da tarefa determinada dica, e ao longo da tarefa, retirar de forma progressiva a dica, até que nenhuma dica seja fornecida (Glisky, Schacter, & Tulving, 1986). Estudos de FO com a população idosa com DA tem sido utilizado em tarefas que ensinam ou recuperam informações relacionadas a memória, orientação espacial e atividades de vida diária (Clare et al, 2000;Clare, Wilson, Carter, Roth, & Hodges, 2002;Haslam, Moss, & Hodder, 2010;Mimura & Komatsu, 2010;Provencher, Bier, Audet, & Gagnon, 2008;Thivierge, Simard, Jean, & Grandmaison, 2008).…”
Section: Um Dos Procedimentos Mais Investigados Nas úLtimas Duas Décaunclassified