Stimulus selection in paired-associate learning: Consonant-triad versus word-triad paradigms.

Berry, Franklin M.; Cole, Steven R.

doi:10.1037/h0034097

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such equivalence seems to have been supported by Murdock (1961) in his demonstration that the short-term forgetting of trigrams and word triads did not differ. In a study of stimulus selection, Berry and Cole (1973) reached the conclusion that the processing of trigrams and triads was very similar and that they may be considered equivalent research models. Therefore, based upon a process analysis and upon past work, it would seem that the free-recall learning of trigrams and triads should be equivalent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the effects of formal similarity among trigrams and among word triads

Underwood

Zimmerman

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central question of this report concerned thewie of formal similarity in free recall of lists of trigrams andlists of three-letter word triads. Similarity was manipulated among trigrams by duplicating letters and among triads bv duplicating words. An initial study showed that lists of 16 letters were learned more rapidly thana listof 16three-Ietter words. Therefore, in the major experiment, the Ss were given all appropriate elements on test trials so that only associative learning was required. Increases in formal similarity caused decreases in rate of learning for both types of lists, and the mechanisms of the interference seemed to be the same for both types of lists. However, the learning of the trigram lists was more rapid than thelearning of the triad lists, the difference being maximal with low similarity.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the effects of formal similarity among trigrams and among word triads

Underwood

Zimmerman

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, many (if not most) associations formed outside the experimental setting result from incidental binding rather than from the intentional encoding used in most studies (e.g., Rimm & Biggs, 1967). Second, the subject matter in many of the early studies consisted of meaningless pseudowords or, at best, single words presented out of context (e.g., Berry & Cole, 1973), as opposed to the contextually embedded, meaningful words normally encountered in natural language processing. Hence, without disregard for the importance of the earlier studies to our understanding of human learning mechanisms, the artificiality of studying meaningless material out of context raises the question of whether their outcomes can be extended to account for the natural formation of associations between words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental formation of episodic associations: The importance of sentential context

Prior

Bentin

2003

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of relevant semantic context on the incidental formation of episodic associations between words was probed in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we examined the influence of associations formed incidentally between unrelated words presented either in isolation or embedded in a sentential context on subsequent explicit paired-associate learning tested by cued recall. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the cued-recall rate of words studied in sentential context was higher than that of words co-occurring in isolated pairs. A subsequent single-items recognition test showed equal item memory for words studied in sentences than for words studied in isolated pairs, suggesting that the sentential context effect in cued recall indeed reflected stronger associations between paired words rather than better memory for single words. In Experiment 2, we ruled out memory for the entire sentence as an alternative explanation for the results of Experiment 1. We suggest two possible mechanisms to account for this advantage: First, pairs embedded in a sentence undergo semantic elaboration that might lead to the incidental formation of an association between them. Second, words embedded in a sentence enjoy the conjoint activation of compatible semantic features, a fact that may also facilitate the formation of an episodic association between them. The implications of these results for computational models using word representations based on co-occurrence data are discussed.

show abstract

“…One counter-argument to the assertion that all retained associations are meaningful concerns experiments in which associations are learned between non-related concepts or nonsense words (Berry & Cole, 1973). Evidence of such learning would support the notion that even meaningless associations are retained, and therefore associations need not be semantic.…”

Section: Associative Relatednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic and associative relations in adolescents and young adults: Examining a tenuous dichotomy.

Masamune¹,

Khalkhali²,

Hare³

2012

The Adolescent Brain: Learning, Reasoning, and Decision Making.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The constructs of semantic and associative relatedness have played a prominent role in research on semantic memory because researchers have historically drawn on the distinction between these two types of relations when formulating theories, creating experimental conditions, and explaining empirical results. We argue that the binary distinction between semantics and association is rooted in a fundamental problem in how the two are defined and contrasted. Whereas semantic relatedness has typically been limited to category coordinates, associative relatedness has most often been operationalized using the word association task. We show that meaningful semantic relations between words/concepts certainly extend beyond category coordinates, that word association is driven primarily by meaningful semantic relations between cue and response words, and that non-meaningful, purely associative relations between words generally are not retained in memory. To illustrate these points, we discuss research on semantic priming, picture naming, and the Deese-Roediger-McDermott false memory paradigm. Furthermore, we describe how research on the development of mnemonic skills in adolescents supports our view. That is, adolescents do not learn arbitrary associations between words, but develop elaborative strategies for linking words by drawing on their rich knowledge of events and situations. In other words, adolescents use existing memories of meaningful relations to ground their memories for novel word pairs, even in an associative learning paradigm.

show abstract

Stimulus selection in paired-associate learning: Consonant-triad versus word-triad paradigms.

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

A comparison of the effects of formal similarity among trigrams and among word triads

A comparison of the effects of formal similarity among trigrams and among word triads

Incidental formation of episodic associations: The importance of sentential context

Semantic and associative relations in adolescents and young adults: Examining a tenuous dichotomy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About