Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Cognitive Psychology
When Is Test-Potentiated Learning Item-Specific Versus Generalized?, Carol Bolte
When Is Test-Potentiated Learning Item-Specific Versus Generalized?, Carol Bolte
Legacy Theses & Dissertations (2009 - 2024)
The current experiments used short (< 1 min) and long (24-hour) retention intervals in the Test-Potentiated Learning (TPL) paradigm to investigate pair specific versus generalized testing effects (TEs) using weakly related English word pairs. The design of the present experiments improved the design used by Cho, Neely, Crocco, and Vitrano (2017), who used Swahili-English pairs. The present design allows for (a) an assessment of both between- and within-subjects pair-specific vs. generalized TEs within the same experiment and (b) better controlled comparisons of the pair-specific and generalized TEs. There was no TE at the short retention interval. At the long retention interval, the TE for tested pairs studied before and after the review test was greater than the generalized TEs obtained for (a) untested pairs studied before and after the review test and (b) untested pairs that were only studied after the review test. Thus, a pair-specific TE occurred, unlike in Cho et al. (2017). The potential reasons for why weakly related English word pairs show pair-specific TEs but Swahili-English pairs do not are discussed.
Effects Of Testing On Retroactive Interference And Proactive Interference In The A-B/A-C Paradigm, Stephanie Crocco
Effects Of Testing On Retroactive Interference And Proactive Interference In The A-B/A-C Paradigm, Stephanie Crocco
Legacy Theses & Dissertations (2009 - 2024)
In an A-B/A-C paradigm, testing A-B pairs before A-C learning reduces retroactive interference (RI, Halamish & Bjork, 2011) and proactive interference (PI, Wahlheim, 2015). In four experiments, after A-B and RI control pairs were studied in List 1, these pairs were either tested or restudied. A-C pairs and PI control pairs were then learned in List 2, followed by a final test on both lists or only List 1. Four procedural factors were manipulated: (1) Swahili-English pairs vs. weakly related English pairs, (2) List 1 restudy vs. test review between- vs. within-subjects, (3) some List 1 pairs studied vs. not …
Does Testing Episodic "Lion-Tiger" And/Or "Tiger-Stripes" Associations Facilitate Later "Lion-Stripes" Learning, Deana Vitrano
Does Testing Episodic "Lion-Tiger" And/Or "Tiger-Stripes" Associations Facilitate Later "Lion-Stripes" Learning, Deana Vitrano
Legacy Theses & Dissertations (2009 - 2024)
The current experiments examined Pyc and Rawson’s (2010) mediator effectiveness hypothesis (MEH) as one potential explanation of the beneficial effects of testing relative to restudying in paired-associate learning. In two experiments, participants learned cue-mediator-target triads (e.g., lion-tiger-stripes) broken down into separate components. Specifically, participants learned and then restudied or were tested on cue-mediator (List 1) and mediator-target (List 2) word pairs in Session 1, and in a Session 2 given 48 hours later learned cue-target (List 3) word pairs. According to Pyc and Rawson, compared to restudying, testing on List 1 cue-mediator and List 2 mediator-target word pairs should lead …