Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 1014–1020 Thursday Evening
(1014)
Transfer in Artificial Grammar Learning. YAEL POZNANSKI,
Achva Academic College, & JOSEPH TZELGOV, RAN AIZENBERG,
& TALI BEN-YEHUDA, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (sponsored
by Sam S. Rakover)—The transfer effect in implicit learning of
artificial grammar is often used as an indication of rule learning. This
effect was criticized for various reasons—for instance, for the use of accuracy
as an indication of learning or the lack of control groups. In this
work, the transfer effect of intentionally retrieving knowledge acquired
incidentally (implicitly) was examined with regard to these critics, using
signal detection’s d′ as a measure of performance. Two experiments
were conducted, Experiment 1 with 10 presentations during the learning
phase (short learning) and Experiment 2 with 50 presentations (extended
learning). Whereas old patterns presented in transferred stimuli
were judged as legal after short learning, the classification of new patterns
as legal was achieved only after extended learning. This result was
interpreted as evidence for two-stage learning: learning of superficial
relations at the first stage and of deep structure at the second.
(1015)
Individual Differences in Skill Acquisition on a Logic Gate Task.
MICHAEL F. BUNTING, University of Missouri, Columbia, & DAVID
W. HATCHER, SCOTT R. HINZE, & JAMES PELLEGRINO, University
of Illinois, Chicago—As individuals successfully acquire a cognitive
skill, performance shifts from intentional to automatic processing.
This experiment explored task and person factors that can
influence an individual’s ability to acquire a complex cognitive skill.
We manipulated difficulty in a logic gate task by varying working
memory load and instance presentation frequency in a 2 (load) � 2
(instance) between-subjects design. In addition, we assessed various
cognitive abilities to explore the role of multiple sources of individual
differences in skill acquisition. The between-subjects manipulations
interacted to influence the speed and accuracy of skill acquisition, indicating
that both internal and external memory load manipulations
influence task difficulty. In agreement with Ackerman’s (1988) threephase
model, working memory capacity was most important as subjects
began to acquire a skill but was displaced by other factors later
in acquisition. The implications of these results for theories of skill
acquisition will be discussed.
(1016)
Transfer of Training for Cognitive Skills: An Investigation of Use-
Specificity. TIMOTHY J. NOKES, Beckman Institute, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign—Learning a cognitive skill requires
learning both procedural and declarative knowledge. Previous work
on skill acquisition has argued that procedural knowledge will only
transfer to tasks that use that knowledge in the same way (Singley &
Anderson, 1989). However, research suggests that declarative knowledge
can be transferred to new tasks regardless of use. In the present
study, I examine both use-specific and use-general knowledge transfer
of a cognitive skill. Participants were trained on one of two skill
subcomponents for solving sequence extrapolation problems (pattern
detection versus pattern extrapolation) and then solved a target problem.
Participants given detection training were faster to find the target
pattern, whereas participants given extrapolation training were
faster to articulate the target sequence, and both groups were faster
than a control group for their respective nontrained components of
problem solving. The results suggest that participants transferred both
use-specific and use-general knowledge from training to test.
(1017)
Distributed Practice and Long-Term Retention: A Ratio Rule for
Optimal Interstudy Interval to Retention Interval? NICHOLAS J.
CEPEDA, University of Colorado, Boulder, & HAROLD PASHLER
& EDWARD VUL, University of California, San Diego—Despite years
of distributed practice studies, little is known about how interstudy interval
and retention interval interact over long durations—information
that is critical for the practical application of distributed practice re-
54
search. We report data from a large-scale Internet-based study examining
four different retention intervals, ranging from 1 to 50 weeks,
combined with interstudy intervals (ISIs) ranging from 0 days to 15
weeks. Participants learned a set of obscure facts and were tested for
both recall and recognition memory during a final test. Based on data
from more than 1,000 participants, our results indicate (1) that nonmonotonic
lag functions arise over these long intervals (i.e., each retention
interval has an optimal ISI) and (2) that optimal ISI increases
as a predictable ratio of retention interval.
(1018)
Differential + Associative Processing: A New Strategy for Learning
Confusing Concepts. BRENDA A. HANNON & GREG LOZANO,
University of Texas, San Antonio—In educational settings, students are
often expected to learn pairs of concepts such as fluid intelligence and
crystallized intelligence. For many students, these concepts are difficult
to learn because they have highly similar definitions that are easy
to confuse. The challenge of learning these highly similar yet often
confused concepts is even further complicated by the fact that students
are often examined about differences between the concepts in a pair.
This research tests a new strategy for learning highly similar yet often
confused concepts. This new strategy—called differential + associative
processing—is an integration of two well-established cognitive theories
that requires: (1) the explicit identification of differences between
highly similar pairs of concepts (e.g., fluid intelligence decreases with
age, whereas crystallized intelligence increases with age) and (2) that
each part of the identified difference (e.g., decreasing with age) to be
associated with its respective concept (e.g., fluid intelligence). The results
of three experiments show the effectiveness of differential + associative
processing and validate the need for both the differential and
associative components.
• WORKING MEMORY •
(1019)
Domain-General Versus Domain-Specific Resources in Working
Memory. RYAN J. KENNY & M. JEANNE SHOLL, Boston College
(sponsored by M. Jeanne Sholl)—In Baddeley’s (2003) working memory
model, a central executive (CE) allocates cognitive resources to
separate verbal and visuospatial storage systems for the temporary
maintenance and manipulation of information. We report two experiments
that used an interference paradigm to test whether the cognitive
resources allocated by the CE are domain-specific or domain-general.
In both experiments, participants maintained 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 items in
either verbal or visuospatial short-term store while simultaneously processing
either verbal or visuospatial information. The domain-general
hypothesis predicts interference under sufficient memory load when
verbal (visuospatial) memory is paired with visuospatial (verbal) processing.
In contrast, the domain-specific hypothesis predicts interference
when memory and processing are paired within the same domain
but not when paired between domains. Although they are not clearly
consistent with either hypothesis, the results inform models of resource
sharing in working memory.
(1020)
Allocating Attention to Cross-Domain Stimuli in Working Memory.
CANDICE C. MOREY & NELSON COWAN, University of Missouri,
Columbia—A controversy in working memory is whether information
is stored entirely in modules operating effortlessly for different codes
and modalities, or whether they are supplemented by attention used
for general storage. The latter theory should result in competition between,
say, visuospatial and auditory–verbal information. We argue
for this competition. Morey and Cowan (2004, in press) showed that
maintaining verbal materials in memory interferes with visuospatial
working memory. However, opponents of the attention-as-storage
view still could argue that verbal rehearsal contributes to spatial recall,
or that levels of task difficulty are uncontrolled. To address these
concerns, we did further experimentation using (1) series of tones in-