语境多样性与锚定:对词形学习无效,对词义学习相反。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1177/17470218231218990
Jiayin Li, Louise Wong, Catarina Rodrigues, Rachael C Hulme, Holly Joseph, Fiona E Kyle, J S H Taylor
{"title":"语境多样性与锚定:对词形学习无效,对词义学习相反。","authors":"Jiayin Li, Louise Wong, Catarina Rodrigues, Rachael C Hulme, Holly Joseph, Fiona E Kyle, J S H Taylor","doi":"10.1177/17470218231218990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Words that appear in many contexts/topics are recognised faster than those occurring in fewer contexts. However, contextual diversity benefits are less clear in word learning studies. Mak et al. proposed that diversity benefits might be enhanced if new word meanings are anchored before introducing diversity. In our study, adults (<i>N</i> = 288) learned meanings for eight pseudowords, four experienced in six topics (high diversity) and four in one topic (low diversity). All items were first experienced five times in one topic (anchoring phase), and results were compared to Norman et al. which used a similar paradigm without an anchoring phase. An old-new decision post-test (did you learn this word?) showed null effects of contextual diversity on written form recognition accuracy and response time, mirroring Norman et al. A cloze task involved choosing which pseudoword completed a sentence. For sentences situated in a previously experienced context, accuracy was significantly higher for pseudowords learned in the low diversity condition, whereas for sentences situated in a new context, accuracy was non-significantly higher for pseudowords learned in the high diversity condition. Anchoring modulated these effects. Low diversity item accuracy was unaffected by anchoring. However, for high-diversity items, accuracy in familiar contexts was better in the current experiment (anchoring) than in Norman et al. (non-anchoring), but accuracy in new contexts did not differ between the two experiments. These results suggest that anchoring facilitates meaning use in familiar contexts, but not generalisation to new contexts, nor word recognition in isolation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contextual diversity and anchoring: Null effects on learning word forms and opposing effects on learning word meanings.\",\"authors\":\"Jiayin Li, Louise Wong, Catarina Rodrigues, Rachael C Hulme, Holly Joseph, Fiona E Kyle, J S H Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231218990\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Words that appear in many contexts/topics are recognised faster than those occurring in fewer contexts. However, contextual diversity benefits are less clear in word learning studies. Mak et al. proposed that diversity benefits might be enhanced if new word meanings are anchored before introducing diversity. In our study, adults (<i>N</i> = 288) learned meanings for eight pseudowords, four experienced in six topics (high diversity) and four in one topic (low diversity). All items were first experienced five times in one topic (anchoring phase), and results were compared to Norman et al. which used a similar paradigm without an anchoring phase. An old-new decision post-test (did you learn this word?) showed null effects of contextual diversity on written form recognition accuracy and response time, mirroring Norman et al. A cloze task involved choosing which pseudoword completed a sentence. For sentences situated in a previously experienced context, accuracy was significantly higher for pseudowords learned in the low diversity condition, whereas for sentences situated in a new context, accuracy was non-significantly higher for pseudowords learned in the high diversity condition. Anchoring modulated these effects. Low diversity item accuracy was unaffected by anchoring. However, for high-diversity items, accuracy in familiar contexts was better in the current experiment (anchoring) than in Norman et al. (non-anchoring), but accuracy in new contexts did not differ between the two experiments. These results suggest that anchoring facilitates meaning use in familiar contexts, but not generalisation to new contexts, nor word recognition in isolation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231218990\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231218990","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在许多上下文中/主题中出现的单词比在较少上下文中出现的单词识别速度更快(Nation, 2017)。然而,上下文多样性的好处在单词学习研究中不太明显。Mak et al.(2021)提出,如果在引入多样性之前锚定新词的含义,可能会增强多样性效益。在我们的研究中,成人(N = 288)学习了8个假词的含义,4个在6个主题中学习(高多样性),4个在一个主题中学习(低多样性)。所有项目首先在一个主题中经历五次(锚定阶段),并将结果与Norman等人(2022)进行比较,Norman等人使用了类似的范式,但没有锚定阶段。一个旧-新决策后测试(你学过这个词吗?)显示上下文多样性对书面形式识别准确性和反应时间没有影响,这与Norman等人的研究结果一致。填空任务包括选择哪个假词完成一个句子。在低多样性条件下习得假词的准确性显著高于在低多样性条件下习得假词的准确性,而在高多样性条件下习得假词的准确性不显著高于在高多样性条件下习得的假词。锚定调节了这些影响。低多样性项目的准确性不受锚定的影响。然而,对于高多样性项目,当前实验(锚定)在熟悉情境下的准确性优于Norman等人(非锚定),但在新情境下的准确性在两个实验之间没有差异。这些结果表明,锚定有助于在熟悉的语境中使用意义,但不能推广到新语境中,也不能孤立地识别单词。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Contextual diversity and anchoring: Null effects on learning word forms and opposing effects on learning word meanings.

Words that appear in many contexts/topics are recognised faster than those occurring in fewer contexts. However, contextual diversity benefits are less clear in word learning studies. Mak et al. proposed that diversity benefits might be enhanced if new word meanings are anchored before introducing diversity. In our study, adults (N = 288) learned meanings for eight pseudowords, four experienced in six topics (high diversity) and four in one topic (low diversity). All items were first experienced five times in one topic (anchoring phase), and results were compared to Norman et al. which used a similar paradigm without an anchoring phase. An old-new decision post-test (did you learn this word?) showed null effects of contextual diversity on written form recognition accuracy and response time, mirroring Norman et al. A cloze task involved choosing which pseudoword completed a sentence. For sentences situated in a previously experienced context, accuracy was significantly higher for pseudowords learned in the low diversity condition, whereas for sentences situated in a new context, accuracy was non-significantly higher for pseudowords learned in the high diversity condition. Anchoring modulated these effects. Low diversity item accuracy was unaffected by anchoring. However, for high-diversity items, accuracy in familiar contexts was better in the current experiment (anchoring) than in Norman et al. (non-anchoring), but accuracy in new contexts did not differ between the two experiments. These results suggest that anchoring facilitates meaning use in familiar contexts, but not generalisation to new contexts, nor word recognition in isolation.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Negative or positive left or right? The influence of attribute label position on IAT effects in picture-word IATs and word IATs. Prior multisensory learning can facilitate auditory-only voice-identity and speech recognition in noise. Visual letter similarity effects in Korean word recognition: The role of distinctive strokes. EXPRESS: On prior visual experience in mental map navigation using allocentric and egocentric perspectives in the visually impaired EXPRESS: Pure-tone audiometry and dichotic listening in primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer's disease.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1