Sensory modality and method of item information presentation in memory

Investigated were differences in paired-associate learning for auditory versus visual modalities and within each modality the anticipation and study test methods of item presentation were compared. Extant reports re these two sensory modalities and of the two learning methods had been inconsistent. In this study of 40 university students, the learning of CVC-CVC nonsense syllable pairs was significantly better with the visual than with the auditory modality. The study-test method was significantly superior to the anticipation method in the visual mode. With auditory presentations, however, acquisition levels for both methods were the same. Significant interactions were observed between sensory modalities and methods of presentation. At present the retention interval theory (Izawa 1972–1979b) appears to account best for the varied findings with respect to the two methods of presentation.     

Total time and efficient time management: in search of optimal learning and retention via study-test-rest presentation programs

Bugelski's total time hypothesis (TTH) assumes that a constant time X is needed to learn Y regardless of how time X is programmed, with no possibility of optimization. Izawa's study-test-rest (STR) hypothesis assumes that optimization in learning and retention is possible. Examined were the effects of varied study (S) and test (T) presentation programs on learning and retention, with total time held constant. Participants learned a list of 12 paired associates under three presentation program types. In S + T list repetitions, each pair was presented once per S cycle and tested once per T cycle; both S and T were repeated in list form. In S + T item repetitions, each pair was repeated 1-6 times before the next pair in the list was presented on both S and T cycles. For S/T alternations, the entire list of pairs was studied and then each pair was tested, with S and T cycles alternating. Under each program type, there were four presentation rates. Item repetition led to more learning than list repetition when the presentation rate was very fast. Learning and retention were greatest with the intermediate S/T alternation program. These findings supported Izawa's STR hypothesis but strongly contradicted TTH.     

Response variations to Stroop color-word stimuli

Reaction times (RTs) and net interference measures were obtained for 64 Stroop color-word stimuli from 8 common colors. Subjects were 64 college students, 32 of each sex. The incongruous stimulus was designated as either the ink interpretation different from the word or the word interpretation different from the ink. Consistently large variations within Stroop stimuli and Word x Ink interactions were found. Complex qualitative and quantitative differences were revealed between sexes. Females had faster RTs, but showed no significant superiority in measured net interference. The derived rank orders of net interference between sexes were correlated when using the ink, but not when using the word. Neither word nor ink were related in ranking RTs. For net interference, however, derived RTs were highly related for women using the ink interpretation, but not when using the word; they were unrelated for men using either interpretation. Two interrference types were highly correlated for women, but not for men. An additional experiment with a color-blind group cast an interesting light on the issue. Our Stroop data, rank ordered by sex for each measure, may assist viable theory constructions, including the context-dependent interaction hypothesis.     

Case study of a one‐sided attack by multiple troop members on a nontroop adolescent male and the death of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata)

An adolescent wild male Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata), following Kinkazan A troop, was attacked one‐sidedly by multiple members of the troop. The victim was identified as PI, and was estimated to be seven±one year old. The aggressive interaction was recorded by video camera until the end. Although at least 16 troop members approached PI more than once, only three males (one adult, two adolescents) of A troop attacked him. PI kept crouching throughout the attack, then escaped to the shore and dived into the sea. The interaction continued for more than one hour. PI was found dead a few hours after the end of interaction. The damage caused by the assailants was not the direct cause of PI's death; it was due to hypothermia caused by drifting in the sea. PI's life history was reconstructed from past records. PI was a normal adolescent male who migrated from an all‐male group around B₁ troop and started ranging around A troop. The aggressive interaction is believed to be a typical example of conflict between troop males and a nontroop male. The interaction period was very long compared with previous reports on such conflicts among Japanese macaques. PI kept crouching in open areas, exposing himself as a potential competitor for the resources of the troop, and did not show any submissive or reconciliatory behavior toward the troop males. This may be why the troop males did not stop the attack. Aggr. Behav. 35:334–341, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The identity model and factors controlling the superiority of the study-test method over the anticipation method

Short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) components are assumed to overlap in such a way that the response reflects predominantly STM components in short retention intervals but LTM ones in long retention intervals. Based on the STM and LTM overlap hypothesis, the identity model postulates that basic processes per study, test, and intervening study and test events as well as intercycle intervals, respectively, are the same for both anticipation and study-test methods in cued (paired-associate) recall and recognition (verbal discrimination learning). A crucial difference between the two methods is the differential retention interval distribution (containing an overlap area). Amounts of STM components in the short-term store (STS), that is, critical items, seem to control the varied superiority of the study-test method over the anticipation method. This is directly linked to the learning difficulty dimension, which in turn is determined by such variables as list length, learning materials, exposure durations (presentation rates), acquisition stages, learning ability, developmental stages (ages), and others.     

Comparisons of learning procedures: Effects of constant and random presentations

The retention interval hypothesis (Izawa 1972) was formulated on the basis of retention interval distributions given in random order to account for inconsistent performance differences between anticipation and study-test procedures, which have been regarded as a puzzle for nearly two decades. Under the anticipation procedure a presentation of the stimulus term of a paired-associate (a test event) is immediately followed by a presentation of both stimulus and response terms of the pair (a study event), whereas under the study-test procedure, study and test events are given on separate cycles. The retention interval hypothesis was specifically tested in a situation without any random distributions of the retention intervals i.e., under a constant item presentation order from cycle to cycle, in addition to random presentation orders, in a paired-associate learning experiment, using 80 college students. As predicted by the theory, significantly superior performances were obtained for the study-test method vis-à-vis the anticipation method also under a constant item presentation order. The constant presentation-order- arrangements significantly outperformed the random ones. Directions for further theoretical elaborations are suggested.     

A Happiness Study Using Age-Period-Cohort Framework

Age effects and birth cohort effects have not been differentiated in happiness studies. In this paper, age-period-cohort decomposition is applied to happiness data in the US. Since the relationship is linear, such as age = period ? cohort, it is not possible to identify the three effects. This paper considers four identification models: the polynomial age-effect model, the proxy-variable model, the orthogonal period-effect model, and the principal component model. Happiness data are obtained from the General Social Survey for 1972–2008. Except for the polynomial age-effect model, three alternative models provide similar results. In particular, there is little difference between the decomposition results obtained by the orthogonal period-effect model and by the principal component model. The age effect shows downward movements for 18–55 and for 80–89, an upward movement for 56–69, and an almost flat movement for 70–79. The period effect shows cyclical movements slightly similar to unemployment rates fluctuations. The cohort effect shows a downward movement for the birth cohorts of 1894–1936, a dip for 1945–1958 (baby boomers), an upward movement for 1959–1969, and an almost flat movement for 1970–1987.     

A test of the differences between anticipation and study-test methods of paired-associate learning

The identity model proposes that anticipation and study-test methods of paired-associate learning differ little in basic acquisition, retrieval, and storage processes per event: study, test, and intervening study and test events of other items plus the intercycle interval. The major difference between the two methods boils down to differential short-term loss over the differential retention interval. When the study-test interval is equated, the identity model predicts no difference between the methods. However, the feedback model predicts superiority for the anticipation method, and the differential acquisition, context effect, or task alternation models predict superiority for the study-test method. An experimental test utilized (nearly) identical study-test intervals, various materials, and both massed and spaced practice. In 15 out of 16 comparisons, there was no difference between the methods, providing support for the identity model. Within limits, the greater the study-test interval differentials, the greater the advantage for the method with the shorter study-test intervals. Quantitative analyses support the identity model.