试验数据同传

UQ eSpace Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.14264/c18b259
Jenny Burt, K. Chalmers, Jack M. I. Leggett
{"title":"试验数据同传","authors":"Jenny Burt, K. Chalmers, Jack M. I. Leggett","doi":"10.14264/c18b259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dataset consists of the trial by trials data (items and responses) for each of three experiments. Participants learned to associate target words with cue words in the corrective feedback paradigm. Guessing the target from the cue was compared with reading cue-target pairs as a study method. Participants were asked to recall the target given the cue word. In all experiments cues were homographs (e.g., bank) and the targets were in the typical sense (money) or the less typical sense (river). In Experiments 1 and 2 the benefit of guessing was greater for targets in the typical sense. In Experiment 3 all targets were in the typical sense, and prime phrases preceding the cue biased the typical vs. atypical meaning of the cue. When guesses were compatible with the prime, accuracy at test was higher for typical meanings. The results do not support the idea that surprising feedback is better encoded.","PeriodicalId":243136,"journal":{"name":"UQ eSpace","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"TrialDataHomographs\",\"authors\":\"Jenny Burt, K. Chalmers, Jack M. I. Leggett\",\"doi\":\"10.14264/c18b259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The dataset consists of the trial by trials data (items and responses) for each of three experiments. Participants learned to associate target words with cue words in the corrective feedback paradigm. Guessing the target from the cue was compared with reading cue-target pairs as a study method. Participants were asked to recall the target given the cue word. In all experiments cues were homographs (e.g., bank) and the targets were in the typical sense (money) or the less typical sense (river). In Experiments 1 and 2 the benefit of guessing was greater for targets in the typical sense. In Experiment 3 all targets were in the typical sense, and prime phrases preceding the cue biased the typical vs. atypical meaning of the cue. When guesses were compatible with the prime, accuracy at test was higher for typical meanings. The results do not support the idea that surprising feedback is better encoded.\",\"PeriodicalId\":243136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UQ eSpace\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UQ eSpace\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14264/c18b259\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UQ eSpace","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14264/c18b259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数据集由三个实验中的每个实验的试验数据(项目和响应)组成。在纠正反馈范式中,参与者学会了将目标词与提示词联系起来。通过线索猜测目标与阅读线索-目标对作为研究方法进行比较。参与者被要求在给定提示词的情况下回忆目标。在所有的实验中,线索都是同音异义词(例如,银行),目标是典型意义上的(钱)或不太典型意义上的(河)。在实验1和2中,猜测对典型意义上的目标的好处更大。在实验3中,所有的目标都是典型意义上的,提示前的启动短语对提示的典型意义和非典型意义有偏倚。当猜测与启动一致时,典型意义的测试准确率更高。研究结果并不支持令人惊讶的反馈被更好地编码的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
TrialDataHomographs
The dataset consists of the trial by trials data (items and responses) for each of three experiments. Participants learned to associate target words with cue words in the corrective feedback paradigm. Guessing the target from the cue was compared with reading cue-target pairs as a study method. Participants were asked to recall the target given the cue word. In all experiments cues were homographs (e.g., bank) and the targets were in the typical sense (money) or the less typical sense (river). In Experiments 1 and 2 the benefit of guessing was greater for targets in the typical sense. In Experiment 3 all targets were in the typical sense, and prime phrases preceding the cue biased the typical vs. atypical meaning of the cue. When guesses were compatible with the prime, accuracy at test was higher for typical meanings. The results do not support the idea that surprising feedback is better encoded.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信