Sam C. Brown

Relationship between item strength and order of free recall

Probability of recall of an item, reflecting its “strength,” depends on its location in the presented list and its degree of learning. The present study investigated the relation between strength of items and their output position in free recall. Item strength and output positions were calculated for items of different degrees of learning in different parts of the input list. The results showed a curvilinear relationship between item strength and output order, such that items of intermediate strength were recalled before items of higher or lower strength. This finding is interpreted to reflect a minimal interference strategy which S s use to maximize recall.

Comparison of successive and simultaneous methods of pair presentation in paired-associate learning

Paired-associate learning was significantly retarded when pairs were presented simultaneously rather than successively for rehearsal. This difference was invariant with respect to degree of intralist similarity, size of rehearsal group, and whether pairs appeared in same or different rehearsal groups on each trial.

Effect of simultaneous list presentation on paired-associate learning.

Difficulty of learning a list of 12 CVC pairs increased monotonically as a function of number of list items (1, 3, 6, and 12) grouped together for simultaneous exposure. Contrary to expectation, the difficulty was not affected by locus of grouping, i.e., whether grouping occurred on the study part, test part, or on both parts of each trial. Subsequent free recall also failed to show significant differences between conditions. The over-all grouping decrement was interpreted in terms of a strengthening of multiple associations among list members.

Intralist categorization in paired-associate learning

Paired-associate learning was retarded significantly when groups of pairs in the list appeared with a common label. The decrement was due largely to increased interference (response competition) among pairs sharing the same label. It is concluded that labels serve to categorize the pairs in the list.

Response-term predictability and stimulus-response conceptual similarity in paired-associates learning

Paired-associates learning was significantly facilitated when lists were constructed such that, given the S term, the conceptual category of the R term was highly predictable. Increased predictability served to minimize the effects of S-R conceptual similarity and, it was concluded, to facilitate PA learning by restricting the number of possible response alternatives.

Effect of simultaneous presentation of conceptually similar and dissimilar items on paired associate learning1

Paired-associate learning was retarded significantly when subsets of conceptually dissimilar pairs were presented simultaneously rather than successively for learning. The retardation was eliminated, however, when the subsets contained pairs sharing similar stimulus terms or similar response terms. Under both methods of presentation, learning was faster when pairs were grouped on the basis of conceptual similarity than when the same pairs were presented in dissimilar groupings.

Supplementary report: Second-list paired-associate facilitation produced by addition of previously learned first-list pairs

In 2 experiments, paired-associated learning of 10 new 2nd-list pairs was evaluated as a function of number of added pairs taken from a previously-learned list (0-2-4), and amount of 1st-list practice (low-medium-high). The results indicated a significant facilitation in 2nd-list learning produced by the addition of either 2 or 4 well-learned 1st-list pairs, provided these were substantially better learned than other pairs in List 1. This is interpreted as indicating that added well-learned 1st-list pairs may lead to reduced intralist and/or interlist interference during 2nd-list learning.