An Approximate Transfer Surface

Abstract

The principal defect in the Osgood (1949) transfer surface is the treatment of negative transfer. This may be corrected, although no surface can incorporate all the relevant transfer variables. The explanation and the scoring of negative transfer are discussed, with an emphasis on problems of skills learning. The conclusions reached are represented in the design of a new transfer surface.

Transitional Movement Skill Dependence on Fundamental Movement Skills: Testing Seefeldt’s Proficiency Barrier

“…It could be that there is no transfer, just the barrier (Figures 1.a and 1.c), or there is transfer and it is either constant (Figure 1.b) or proportional (Figure 1.d). All these possibilities are considered here given the manner in which transfer is observed is a matter of the scoring scheme (Holding, 1976) and task constrains (see Newell, 1986;Pacheco & Newell, 2018) of both the learned skill (in our case, the FMS) and the new skill (in our case, the TMS).…”

Semantic relatedness retroactively boosts memory and promotes memory interdependence across episodes

“…Therefore, if one took the wider stimulus set, 5-min delay surface and expanded stimulus relatedness into domains beyond words, RI may decrease again, producing a nonlinear effect reminiscent of those found across early studies employing a wide variety of stimulus types, including with numbers, number-letter combinations, nonsense syllables, abstract visual symbols, poetry, and prose ( Britt, 1935 ; Robinson, 1927 ; Gibson, 1941 ; Parducci and Knopf, 1958 ; Cheng, 1929 ; Lund, 1926 ; Dreis, 1933 ; Harden, 2010 ; Gibson and Gibson, 1934 ; Rothkopf, 1957 ). Additionally, future studies could explore how surfaces differ based on less nameable stimuli types, such as stimulus spaces with continuous, quantifiable changes in visual stimuli (e.g., Wammes et al, 2021 ; Molitor et al, 2021 ; Iordan et al, 2020 ; Natu et al, 2016 ), or other domains ( Dennis, 1976 ).…”