Multi-trial recognition memory: Proactive versus retroactive interferences within a single list

Both results and interpretations are conflicting concerning proactive or retroactive interferences that may be generated by individual items upon other items within a single recognition list. In an attempt to explore a factor that may assist in reconciling varied findings, each of the three present lists consisting of either CVCs, two-digits, or words, respectively, was presented via half-lists on multi-study and -test cycles. Two half-lists were given in such a way that both sublists experienced the same number of intervening events in the mean retention interval, but differing ones in the composition of mean retroactive study and test events. Sixty male and female undergraduates participated. In contrast to small proactive study event interference, both retroactive study and retroactive test events did control recognition performances in an intriguing manner: Relative interferences generated by retroactive study events were weaker early in acquisition, but gained strength as learning progressed, and at late acquisition stages became quite powerful vis-à-vis retroactive test events. Thus, the acquisition stage seems to be a relevant factor in determining recognition performance.     

Toward a quantitative theory for performance differences between anticipation and study-test procedures: The retention interval model

In an effort to account quantitatively for performance differences between study-test and anticipation methods, a rudimentary theory, the retention interval model, is proposed. This model postulates three different theoretical functions for the three operationally distinguishable and qualitatively different events in the retention interval: intercycle rest, intervening-study-events and intervening-test-events intervals. The retention interval model satisfactorily accounted for 144 data points based on 35, 136 observations (164 subjects) by using only 30 estimated parameters in three experiments (48 points via 10 parameters per experiment), with massed as well as spaced practice, under both anticipation and study-test (RT) methods. In spite of a restrictive parameter estimation mode, close agreements were achieved between the model and data. The retention interval appears to generate powerful effects in determining the absolute performance levels for both anticipation and study-test learning procedures in the various intercycle intervals.     

Nine‐ to 11‐month‐old infants' reasoning about causality in anomalous human movements1

Two habituation experiments investigated 9–11‐month‐old infants' reasoning about causality in anomalous human movements. During habituation, infants saw an event in which a person walked toward a stationary person behind an occluder who fell down after an interval. Then, the infants were tested with two events without the occluder: the contact event in which the first person pushed the second one to fall down and the no‐contact event in which the second person fell down without any contact. In Experiment 1, in which the persons were face‐to‐back, infants looked at the no‐contact event for a longer time, whereas in Experiment 2, in which the persons were face‐to‐face, they looked at both the events for equal duration. Thus, infants considered it unnatural when a person fell down without external force in the absence of any action from a distance (e.g. communication). Infants seem to apply the physical contact principles to human movements in certain cases.     

Effects of two retention interval components on performance differences between study-test and anticipation methods in paired-associate learning

Given that the retention interval consists of two qualitatively different and operationally distinguishable components, both separate and joint effects of them were necessary to assess their relative dominance in controlling both significant and nonsignificant performance differences between anticipation and study (reinforcement)-test methods; thus illuminating results thought inconsistent for about two decades. Three paired-associate learning experiments, with a total of 167 university students, were conducted with both massed (no intercycle or Type I interval) and spaced (30 sec Type 1 intervals) practice within each experiment. Both significantly and nonsignificantly superior performance resulted for the study-test method vis-à-vis the anticipation method with massed practice without practice. Findings support the retention interval hypothesis (Izawa, 1972) which is further strengthened when augmented with the capacity to account for the absolute performance differences between methods.