Minimal paired-associate learning.

Peterson, Lloyd R.; Hillner, Kenneth P.

doi:10.1037/h0044967

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are, however, some differences between this task and the paired-associate task typically used to study cued STM (e.g., Peterson & Peterson, 1962). There are at least two ways to remember an item correctly in our experimental situation: (1) by direct association between a picture and a location on the table, and (2) by counting back from the most recent item and using interitem associations to determine how far back an item occurred.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term memory with young children

1964

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two groups of children, a 4-year old and a 5-year old group, were run in a short-term memory experiment specifically designed to sustain the attention of a young child. The results indicated that the technique was successful in permitting the collection of orderly data from these Ss. ProblemIn recent years there has been an increasing interest in the study of short-term memory (STM) as a fundamental problem in verbal learning (e. g., Melton, 1963;Peterson, 1963). Since most of the STM studies have used adult Ss, it seems desirable to extend the range of research to include data on young children. However, the tedious and uninteresting nature of the typical STM task would make it difficult to sustain the attention of a young child. The experiment described in this paper introduces a more appropriate technique which is based on a children's game, and which makes possible the collection of meaningful STM data from young chiidren. MethodForty children served as Ss in the experiment, all attendees at a child day care center in Oakland, California. There were two experimental groups of 20 Ss each; the groups were specified in terms of age. For Group I, the Ss were 31/2 to 4 1/2 years old (mean age 4.16, SD = .46); for Group II, the age range was 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years (mean age 5.09, SD = .41). Each group contained ten boys and ten girls.The material to be remembered consisted of a set of eleven animal cards; i. e., playing cards containing pictures of familiar animals. On each trial, a subset of eight cards was randomly selected, and these were shown one at a time to S. After each card was shown to S, it was placed face down on the table so that after all eight cards were presented, they formed a horizontal row in front of S. After the last card was laid down, a cue card identical to one of the cards presented on that tri~l was placed face up on the table, and S was asked to turn up the card which he thought matched the cue card. When incorrect, S continued to turn up cards until he located the correct one.Each S was run for 32 trials, and each of the eight presentation positions contained the correct response (Le., the cue card) four times in the session. The assignment of pictures to serial positions was randomly determined for each trial. First and second choice responses were recorded, as was the latency from presentation of the cue card to the touching of the card chosen for the first choice response. ResultsFigure 1 presents the proportion of correct responses at each position for the two groups of Ss. Position 1 corresponds to the most recently displayed card, and position 8 to the first card shown on a trial. As expected, the proportion of correct responses at a given position is a decreasing function of the number of items intervening between presentation of the item and its test for recall. Note, also, that there isno evidence of a primacy effect in these data; i.e., positions 7 and 8 do not have a higher probability of correct recall than say positions 5 and 6. In similar experiments with college stu...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term memory with young children

1964

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used the Brown-Peterson test (Peterson and Peterson 1962) to test a variation in the short-term memory span of the subjects after a booth exposure. Subjects were given a series of trigrams of letters; each trigram was followed by a number countdown challenge, after which subjects were asked to recall the trigram.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiologic and Symptomatic Responses to Low-Level Substances in Individuals with and without Chemical Sensitivities: A Randomized Controlled Blinded Pilot Booth Study

Joffres¹,

Sampalli²,

Fox³

2005

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a pilot study using a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled exposure among 10 individuals with and 7 without reported chemical sensitivities in a dedicated testing chamber. Objectives of the study were to explore the length of the adaptation period to obtain stable readings, evaluate responses to different substances, and measure the level and type of symptomatic and physiologic reactions to low-level exposures. Reported and observed symptoms, electrodermal response, heart rate, skin temperature, surface electromyogram, respiratory rate, contrast sensitivity, and the Brown-Peterson cognitive test were used and compared between cases and controls and between test substances (glue, body wash solution, dryer sheet) and control substances (unscented shampoo and clean air). Subjects with chemical sensitivities (cases) took longer to adapt to baseline protocols than did controls. After adaptation, despite small study numbers, cases displayed statistically significant responses (all measures, p < 0.02) in tonic electrodermal response to test substances compared with controls and compared with the control substance. Symptoms were also higher in cases than in controls for the body wash solution (p = 0.05) and dryer sheets (p = 0.02). Test–retest showed good agreement for both symptoms and tonic electrodermal responses (McNemar’s test, p = 0.32 and p = 0.33, respectively). Outside of skin conductance, other measures had no consistent patterns between test and control substances and between cases and controls. This study shows the importance of using an adaptation period in testing individuals with reported chemical sensitivities and, despite small numbers, raises questions about underlying mechanisms and level of reactivity to low-level chemical exposures in sensitive individuals.

show abstract

Distributed practice in short-term memory

Borkowski

1967

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimal paired-associate learning.

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Short-term memory with young children

Short-term memory with young children

Physiologic and Symptomatic Responses to Low-Level Substances in Individuals with and without Chemical Sensitivities: A Randomized Controlled Blinded Pilot Booth Study

Distributed practice in short-term memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About