«The present study investigated whether subjects were sensitive to negative transfer and proactive interference (PI) at encoding and retrieval and ...»
Interference subjects gave higher global JOLs on each subsequent trial (Ms= 25.32, 31.10, 37.5; SDs = 17.18, 15.82, 17.56, respectively), F (2, 80) = 26.96, p.01, suggesting that subjects might have felt that the ease of encoding the items was becoming less difficult. In order to conduct follow-up tests for some of the effects, I created a dummy variable by collapsing across another variable. For example, the overall global JOL magnitude for each trial reflects an average of list 1 and 2 global JOLs. The estimated marginal means were used rather than the observed means because the estimated marginal means removes the error present in the observed means, and standard deviations were calculated by multiplying the standard error with the square root of the sample size. Moreover, interference subjects gave lower global JOLs to list 2 (M = 28.38, SD = 15.15) than list 1 (M = 34.66, SD = 17.86), F (1, 40) = 14.85, p.01, suggesting that subjects might have been sensitive to the list-level PI present. I found a marginally significant main effect of JOL type, F (1, 40) = 3.53, p =.07. Interference subjects in the immediate JOL condition (M = 35.94, SD = 15.26) gave higher global JOLs than did interference subjects in the delayed JOL condition (M = 27.09, SD = 15.26). No other effects were significant.
Interference subjects list 1 and list 2 global JOLs for immediate recall were also compared (these were single metacognitive judgment made after the 4th and 3rd presentation of list 1 and 2 respectively). A 2 (List: 1, 2) x 2 (JOL type: delayed, immediate) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Similarly to the global JOLs for the delayed recall test, subjects gave lower global JOLs for list 2 (M = 30.56, SD = 19.23) than list 1 (M = 43.35, SD = 20.41), F (1, 40) = 52.69, p.01, again suggesting that subjects were sensitive to list-level PI. No other effects were significant.
To summarize, control subjects gave higher global JOLs than interference subjects for both the immediate and delayed recall tests. Furthermore, interference subjects gave lower global JOLs for list 2 than list 1 for both immediate and delayed recall tests (subjects never took a delayed recall test for list 1). The global JOL results suggest that interference subjects were sensitive to overall difficulty in encoding list 2.
Participants in an experiment were presented with a list of 60 words with each word presented for 4 seconds each. Their task was to study these words in order to remember them on a recall test later on.
I would like you to estimate how many words the participants were able to recall on average. Your estimate can range from 0 to 60 words. Write down your estimate at the appropriate space at the bottom of the next page.
Please note: Three groups of participants took part in the experiment described. They all studied the same list under the same conditions. For Group A, however, the memory test took place ten minutes later, for Group B it took place two hours later, and for Group C it took place 48 hours later. We have filled in the actual results of Group A. Please use this number to help determine your estimate for the remaining two groups.
“How many words were recalled on average by each group (write a number between 0
and 60 in each space):
After 10 minutes_____40_____?
After 2 hours__________?
After 48 hours __________?
A vocabulary learning experiment was conducted with 100 participants. Englishspeaking participants saw a list of 20 Swahili words paired with their English meanings (e.g, ladha—prayer, zeituni—olives, etc.) one after the other at a rate of 4 seconds per word pair. Their task was to study these pairs so that when presented later with the first, Swahili word (“ladha” in the example), they would be able to recall the second, English word that went with it (“prayer” in the example). In this way, the first word served as a “hint” and the second word served as the “response.” Fifty of the 100 participants learned two lists of 20 word pairs (the 2-list group), with the second list right after the other. For this group, half (10) of the word pairs in the second list paired some of the old Swahili words with their second English meanings. For example, if “ladha--prayer” appeared in the first list, then “ladha--flavor” would appear in the second list. The other 10 word pairs on the second list were completely new SwahiliEnglish word pairs (e.g., sanda--dipper).
To help illustrate the details further, the 2 lists with 20 word pairs are listed on the next page. You are not required to study the word pairs, but only to estimate how many word pairs the participants recalled. Keep in mind that the participants had to recall the English word when presented with the Swahili word.
The other 50 participants, in the 1-list-only group, learned the same second list but did not learn the first list.
Please note: For the 2-list group, you are estimating their recall for the second list ONLY.
Again, the list that the 1-list-only group learned is the same list as the second list that the 2-list group learned. Below we have filled in the 1-list-only group’s actual performance.
Please make an estimate for the other group.
A) On average, what percent of the 20 word pairs will the 1-list group have correctly
1-list-only group ___60%____?
B) On average, what percent of the List 2 word pairs out of 10, will be learned correctly by the 2-list group, for word pairs where the Swahili word from List 1 was paired with a new, second meaning on List 2?
Please write down an estimate percentage: _________%.
C) On average, what percent of the List 2 word pairs out of 10 will be learned correctly by the 2-list group, for word pairs that presented completely new Swahili words with their English translation?
Please write down an estimate percentage: __________%
Figure 2. E1: Comparing the interference and control conditions on the overall magnitude of specific-item JOLs for list 2 across learning trials.
Figure 5. E1: Mean gamma correlations between list 2 JOLs and immediate recall across learning trials Figure 7.
E1: Comparing interference and control subjects’ gamma correlations between DPOK judgments and delayed recall for interference and non-interference items.
Figure 8. E2: Comparing interference and control condition subjects on mean proportion correct on immediate and delayed recall tests.
JOL magnitude Figure 11. E2: Mean gamma correlations between list 2 JOLs and immediate and delayed recall for high, medium, and low WM interference and control subjects 0.75 0.5
Figure 13. E3: Comparing interference and control condition subjects on mean proportion correct on immediate and delayed recall tests.
Study time (ms.)
Figure 14. E3: Comparing interference and control subjects' list 2 study time for interference and non-interference word pairs.
Figure 15. E3: Comparing high, medium, and low span interference and control subjects' list 2 study time for interference and non-interference word pairs.
Study time (ms.)
Figure 16. E3: Comparing interference subjects' list 1 and 2 study time for interference and non-interference word pairs.
Study time (ms.)
Figure 17. E3: Comparing high, medium, and low span interference subjects, list 1 and 2 study time for interference and non-interference word pairs.
Figure 21. E3: Comparing control and interference subjects' gamma correlations between DPOKs and delayed recall for interference and non-interference items.