An Explanation of Distributed Practice Efficacy in Paired-Associates Learning

Intralist stimulus similarity and facilitation of paired-associate learning by practice distribution

“…F ratio of 62.63, which is significant weIl beyond the .01 level for 1 and 102 df, shows the enormous difference in learning rate that the difference between the two series of stimulus trigr~s has caused. This bolsters the generalization concerning an inverse relationship between ISS and learning rate that has been previously supported in a large number of studies (e.g., Dey, 1966). The effect of ITI also is significant, F(2,102) = 3.84, p< .05, while the ISS by ITI interaction is not significant.…”

“…A principal prediction derived from this theory is that distribution of practice (DP) and intralist stimulus similarity (ISS) influence PA learning in an interactive pattern. This prediction has been successfully tested in a previous study by the writer (Dey, 1966) which has revealed a joint influence of ISS and interunit interval (IUI), so that with higher values of the former, increase in the latter leads to greater facilitation. Supporting evidences have also been reported by Underwood & Ekstrand (1967) who manipulated DP by varying intertrial interval (ITI).…”

“…The writer has developed a theory that interprets the interference in PA learning as a temporally labile inhibitory potential generated by the conflict of simultaneously evoked response tendencies (Dey, 1966). A principal prediction derived from this theory is that distribution of practice (DP) and intralist stimulus similarity (ISS) influence PA learning in an interactive pattern.…”

“…Supporting evidences have also been reported by Underwood & Ekstrand (1967) who manipulated DP by varying intertrial interval (ITI). A further test of this prediction was arranged in the experiment reported in this paper by using the same stimulus terms as used in the earlier study (Dey, 1966) but manipulating DP through the variation of ITI.…”

“…The instruction was the same as used by Dey (1966) plus some explanatory remarks concerning the rest-interval activity. For all groups, practice was carried on up to the criterion of 6/6, which means the frrst perfeet anticipation of all six R terms on a trial.…”