Backward learning and the stimulus-familiarization inhibitory-effect.

Simon, Seymore; Wood, Gordoń

doi:10.1037/h0045579

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This interpretation has received recent confirmation from an experiment by Simon and Wood (1964). They also showed that under special conditions the B-A associations developed in familiarization learning can facilitate subsequent PA learning as well as inhibit it.…”

Section: The Role Of Backward Associationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Backward associations.

Ekstrand¹

1966

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature on backward associations in paired-associate (PA) learning is presented, with an initial section being devoted to definitional and measurement problems. Similar to forward PA learning, backward learning was conceptualized as involving 2 processes: (a) stimulus learning and (b) backward associative learning. There follows a review of the variables involved in backward learning and a discussion of the evidence for and against the Asch-Ebenholtz principle of associative symmetry. Finally, the role of backward associations in different verbal-learning situations is discussed with particular reference to transfer, retroactive and proactive inhibition, mediation, S-R similarity, and prefamiliarization.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Backward Associationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Backward associations.

Ekstrand¹

1966

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, with 20 and 60 aterm familiarization trials the subsequent PAL was better for the group which pronounced terms than for the group which did not pronounce them. In the situations involving some negative transfer paradigms, familiarization inhibits the learning of backward associations as seen by Simon and Wood (1964), Cerekwicki (1964), andDeBold (1964).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Meaningfulness and Familiarization Upon Backward Associations in Paired-Associate Learning

Izawa

1967

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three paired-associate learning (PAL) experiments were conducted with Japanese learning materials and Japanese Ss. Backward associations were tested at various stages of a-b learning. With noun-pairs, backward associations were superior to forward early in learning, but in later stages they were 85%-92% as strong as forward associations. With nonsense syllable-and familiarized nonsense syllable-pairs, backward associations, always significantly inferior to forward, reached the maximum when two-thirds of the a-b list was learned, and later approached an asymptote approximately 50% as strong as forward associations. Facilitating effects of familiarization on backward associations were limited to early stages of learning. A given directionality of training seems to be one of the determinants of PAL. Availability of terms may not sufficiently explain the whole process of associative learning. Asymmetry may be the general rule, and synimetry may be its special case.

show abstract

“…In Martin's (1965) review article, the point of view is taken that what is transferred from List I to List II is some combination of response learning, forward associative strength, and backward associative strength. Recent studies by Simon and Wood (1964) and Goulet and Barclay (1965) found significant negative transfer for the A-B, B-C paradigm. These findings can be interpreted as supporting Martin's contention that backward associations from List I may interfere with List II learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Paired-associate transfer following early stages of list I learning.

Schulman¹

1967

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 8 groups of 20 university undergraduates each, learned 1 of 4 transfer paradigms to a List I criterion of either at least 1/10 or at least 5/10, and a List II criterion of 1 perfect trial. Paradigms used were A-B, C-A ; A-B, A-Br; A-B, A-D; and the A-B, C-D control. In all cases List II stimuli were midrange CVCs and List II responses were highfrequency-of-occurrence real words. This was also true for List I with the exception of the A-B, C-A paradigm where the stimuli of List I were the same as the responses of List II, and the responses of List I were a new set of midrange CVCs. List II trials to criterion data indicated essentially the same pattern of results at both levels of List I learning. A-B, A-B r produced the greatest negative transfer and A-B, A-D the least. A-B, C-A was not significantly different from the A-B, C-D control group, although reaching errorless performance in fewer trials. 1 This article is based on a dissertation submitted to the graduate school of the University of Rochester in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree. The author wishes to acknowledge the considerable assistance of B. G. Andreas and R. C. Radtke. An abridged version of this paper was presented to the Spring 1966 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in New York City. 2 Now at HumRRO, Division No. 2, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

show abstract

Backward learning and the stimulus-familiarization inhibitory-effect.

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Backward associations.

Backward associations.

Effects of Meaningfulness and Familiarization Upon Backward Associations in Paired-Associate Learning

Paired-associate transfer following early stages of list I learning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About