Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
DrewBlundell (talk | contribs) Adding Table showing results of Bahrick experiment |
||
Line 5:
==Initial Findings==
===Two-Phase Prompted Recall===
{| border="1"
|+ Paired-associate list and four types of prompters
! Stimulus
! Response
! 1 (.01-.08)
! 2 (.09-.21)
! 3 (.23-.36)
! 4 (.38-.59)
|-
| TIME
| blue
| velvet (.03)
| grey (.1)
| green (.28)
| azure (.58)
|-
| SHOE
| book
| print (.02)
| comic (.15)
| read (.35)
| chapter (.59)
|-
| TOP
| chair
| leg (.02)
| cushion (.09)
| upholstery (.36)
| furniture (.48)
|-
| WENT
| telephone
| pole (.04)
| extension (.17)
| communication (.33)
| dial (.59)
|-
| TILE
| girl
| child (.03)
| cute (.18)
| feminine (.26)
| coed (.54)
|}
===Thomson and Tulving Initial Experiment===
In 1973, Endel Tulving and Donald M. Thompson released a study commenting on the connection between context-dependent word pairs (cued recall). They also studied the difference between the semantic memory encoding process and an episodic memory encoding process. The researchers proposed that if a word pair consisting of a target word and a cue word was presented to a participant, the best recall for the target word will be the cue word even if the two are not semantically similar. They hypothesize that the unrelated cue word presented with the target word at encoding will be a more effective recall cue for the target word than a strong semantically related word that was not present at encoding. For example, if the word pair chair-glue was presented, the cue glue would more rapidly trigger the target, chair, than would a word that was semantically related to the word “chair,” simply because both were present at encoding and retrieval.
| |||