Hebb Repetition Effects in Complex and Simple Span Tasks Are Based on the Same Learning Mechanism

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Hebb Repetition Effects in Complex and Simple Span Tasks Are Based on the Same Learning Mechanism
Language: English
Authors: Claudia Araya (ORCID 0000-0002-5645-4488), Klaus Oberauer, Satoru Saito
Source: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2024 50(5):759-774.
Availability: American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Short Term Memory, Long Term Memory, Repetition, Recall (Psychology), Serial Ordering, Task Analysis, Learning Processes, Young Adults, Alphabets
DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001290
ISSN: 0278-7393
1939-1285
Abstract: The Hebb repetition effect shows improvement in serial recall of repeated lists compared to random nonrepeated lists. Previous research using simple span tasks found that the Hebb repetition effect is limited to constant uninterrupted lists, suggesting chunking as the mechanism of list learning. However, the Hebb repetition effect has been found in complex span tasks, which challenges the chunking explanation, as successive list items are separated by distractor processing, possibly interfering with the unified representations. We tested the possibility that Hebb repetition learning arises from chunking in simple span, but from position--item associations in complex span. In a series of five experiments, we found evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. Results show that (a) Hebb repetition learning in a complex span task can be transferred to a simple span task; (b) Hebb repetition learning from a complex span task cannot be transferred to a partially repeated simple span task; (c) partial repetition in a complex span task does not lead to learning; (d) Hebb repetition learning from a simple span task can be transferred to a complex span task; and (e) repeating the distractors in complex span has no impact on the Hebb repetition effect. These results suggest that the mechanism underlying the Hebb repetition effect in simple and complex span tasks is the same and points at the creation of chunks while excluding the distractors from the long-term memory representation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1420474
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:The Hebb repetition effect shows improvement in serial recall of repeated lists compared to random nonrepeated lists. Previous research using simple span tasks found that the Hebb repetition effect is limited to constant uninterrupted lists, suggesting chunking as the mechanism of list learning. However, the Hebb repetition effect has been found in complex span tasks, which challenges the chunking explanation, as successive list items are separated by distractor processing, possibly interfering with the unified representations. We tested the possibility that Hebb repetition learning arises from chunking in simple span, but from position--item associations in complex span. In a series of five experiments, we found evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. Results show that (a) Hebb repetition learning in a complex span task can be transferred to a simple span task; (b) Hebb repetition learning from a complex span task cannot be transferred to a partially repeated simple span task; (c) partial repetition in a complex span task does not lead to learning; (d) Hebb repetition learning from a simple span task can be transferred to a complex span task; and (e) repeating the distractors in complex span has no impact on the Hebb repetition effect. These results suggest that the mechanism underlying the Hebb repetition effect in simple and complex span tasks is the same and points at the creation of chunks while excluding the distractors from the long-term memory representation.
ISSN:0278-7393
1939-1285
DOI:10.1037/xlm0001290