Some Effects of Amount of Verbal Pretraining and Availability of Verbal Labels upon Performance in a Discriminative Motor Task

Me, Marshall

doi:10.2466/pms.1968.26.1.27

Percept Mot Skills

1968

DOI: 10.2466/pms.1968.26.1.27

|View full text |Cite

Some Effects of Amount of Verbal Pretraining and Availability of Verbal Labels upon Performance in a Discriminative Motor Task

Marshall Me

Abstract: Sttnzmary.--Adult Ss were given either 3, 6, 9, 15, or 30 trials of relevant or irrelevant verbal pretraining prior to 21 trials on a common discriminative motor task. Relevant pretraining facilitated motor performance significantly over-all, and increaing amounts of relevant pretraining significantly increased the amount of specific proactive facilitation. Within relevanc pretraining conditions, significantly superior motor performance was related to the subsequent correct recall of verbal pretraining respon… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1968

1970

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite2

Independent0

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DISCUSSION Four features of the error measures of the transfer task are of interest. First, the superior performance of Group ICL to that of Group NL confirms previous findings that discrimination set and other more general performance-set factors such as warm-up and learning-to-Iearn are significant sources of proaction in the present experimental design (Marshall, 1968).…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…Verbal acquisition for Groups RDL, RCL, and ICL proceeded by the paced paired-associates anticipation method. All Ss were brought to a criterion of three successive blocks of six correct anticipations.The 20 trials of the paced paired-associates motor task were given by the anticipation-correction method using an apparatus described in detail by Marshall (1968). Ss were informed that on this task a different motor response was to be learned to each of six shapes, and they were told to attempt an anticipation upon each stimulus presentation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 20 trials of the paced paired-associates motor task were given by the anticipation-correction method using an apparatus described in detail by Marshall (1968). Ss were informed that on this task a different motor response was to be learned to each of six shapes, and they were told to attempt an anticipation upon each stimulus presentation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Common label pretraining: Interference and/or facilitation?

Marshall

1968

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several tests of the hypotheses of acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues (Dollard & Miller, 1950) have employed common-label (CL) and/or different-label (DL) treatments during the pretraining or predifferentiation (PD) phase of the investigations (Robinson, 1952;Ellis, Bessemer, Divine, & Trafton, 1962;Katz, 1963;Ellis & Muller, 1964;del Castillo & Ellis, 1968). Equivalence or CL training has required that Ss learn common labels to clusters of two or more stimuli within a test list. Distinctiveness or DL training has required that Ss learn a different label to each stimulus. The majority of these studies have compared the performances of CL and DL groups on recognition or simple discrimination tasks with the performance of a control which has merely observed (0) the critical stimuli during PD training. Under limited conditions of stimulus complexity and response relevance, DL training has facilitated test task performance, while CL training has resulted in performance inferior to that of the 0 control. These data have been interpreted as consonant with the supposition that CL training increases the overall generalization tendencies among the stimuli of the test list, while DL training enhances their discriminability through the acquisition of identical and distinctive verbal response-produced cues, respectively.Recently, del Castillo & Ellis (1968) tested the acquired equivalence (AE) and acquired distinctiveness (AD) hypotheses in the setting of a transfer task which required Ss to make new discriminative motor responses to the stimuli of the verbal PD task. Using four visual stimuli which differed along the single dimension of light intensity, the authors found no evidence for AE, although the AD hypothesis was supported by the superior performance of DL-treatment groups compared with 0 controls. One factor which may have contributed to the failure of evidence for AE (and to the strong evidence for AD within the same design) is the limited appropriateness of the 0 control in the AB-AC stimulus differentiation paradigm. While the 0 treatment does familiarize Ss with the stimuli of the transfer task, and may as well allow Ss to form systematic implicit associations to these stimuli (Ellis & Homan, 1968), it does not give Ss the opportunity to acquire the performance set necessary to the efficient mastery of a subsequent associative task in which the overt paced production of discriminative motor responses is required. Thus, in proceeding from PD to transfer tasks, O-treatment Ss may suffer a performance decrement attributable to differences between task demands. This would at once vitiate the expected superiority of the performance of o Ss to those given the CL treatment, and maximize the superiority of DL to 0 treatments.The purpose of the present experiment was to explore Psychon-. Sci., 1968, Vol. 13 (6) within the AB-AC paradigm the proactive consequences of DL and CL training with respect to a control group given irrelevant training (lCL) and an additional control given no training at all (NL). W...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Common label pretraining: Interference and/or facilitation?

Marshall

1968

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 20 trials of the paced paired-associates motor task were also administered by the anticipation-correction method using a lever-pulling apparatus and a visual correction procedure described elsewhere (Marshall, 1968a). All Ss were informed that on this task a different motor response was to be learned to each of the six presented shapes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalent proaction following common label pretraining

Marshall

1970

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty Ss were assigned to each of three experimental treatments, the transfer effects of which were assessed in a subsequent discriminative motor task. One group learned different verbal responses to each of six test•task stimuli (24-point random shapes), while Ss in a second group learned two such responses to clusters of three of the same stimuli_ A co trol group learned two verbal responses to clusters of different stimuli. Reliable differences were obtained between the treatment groups in terms of total test-task errors and two component error measures. An apparent interaction was observed between speed of original learning, treatment, and component error type.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Some Effects of Amount of Verbal Pretraining and Availability of Verbal Labels upon Performance in a Discriminative Motor Task

Cited by 2 publications

References 16 publications

Common label pretraining: Interference and/or facilitation?

Common label pretraining: Interference and/or facilitation?

Ambivalent proaction following common label pretraining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About