Total time and presentation time in paired-associate learning.

Abstract

Repeated presentations were made of a paired-associate list, with the stimulus and response member of each pair exposed simultaneously. Each pair was presented for a total of 20 or 40 sec., with an exposure time per trial of 2, 5, 10, 20, or 40 sec. Results of a recall test indicated that amount learned varied directly with total exposure time, but that, contrary to Bugelski's total-time hypothesis, more was learned with shorter, than longer, exposures per trial at each total exposure time.

The effect of study time distribution on learning and retention: A Goldilocks principle for presentation rate.

“…So, even though measures were taken to eliminate the problem with intertrial interval, there still was an effective 0.8 s lag between trials resulting in differences in total study time between conditions. Still, the results from the Stubin et al (1970) study were largely in agreement with those obtained by Johnson (1964), even though they used an intertrial interval that was considerably shorter. A nonmonotonic relationship was found between presentation rate and subsequent recall: both slow (Ն 10 s) and fast (2 s) presentation rates resulted in inferior recall performance, compared with an intermediate 5 s presentation rate.…”

“…Because conditions consisting of more exposures automatically received more 4 s intertrial intervals, the differences in presentation rate between conditions also resulted in substantial differences in total time available for study (Cooper & Pantle, 1967). In a follow-up study by Stubin, Heimer, and Tatz (1970), an attempt was made to eliminate this confound of presentation rate and total study time. Paired associates (pairs of CVC nonsense syllables) were presented via a slide projector, and it took 0.8 s for the projector to change slides.…”

“…The results from Johnson (1964) and Stubin et al (1970) suggest that with total time held constant, the presentation duration of individual exposures to study materials influences the extent to which new information is learned. We believe these studies have important implications for both theoretical as well as educational purposes.…”

“…More important, we also wanted to look at longer retention intervals than those used in the earlier studies. In both the Johnson (1964) and the Stubin et al (1970) studies, only a single short retention interval was used. In the Johnson (1964) study, a test was given immediately after learning, and in the Stubin et al (1970) study, participants received a final test only 20 s after the learning phase was completed.…”

Rate and frequency as determinants of learning with complete and discrete list presentation

“…One set of studies suggests that, within a fairly wide range of values, presentation rate is of little consequence, provided total study time is held constant (e.g., Brewer, 1967;Bugelski, 1962). In contrast, Johnson (1964) reported differences in learning rate as a function of presentation rate (and, therefore, number of exposures) with total study time held constant, and Nodine (1965) and Stubin, Heimer, and Tatz (1970) reported superior learning with very rapid presentation time. However, all of the above studies examined paired associate learning, and the materials used were nonsense items.…”