Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Same, Related ● Figure 2 shows the probability of a “hit” (old to an old test
item) by condition for the polysemous manipulations in
Different Sense ● Exp. 2, which look much like those in Exp. 1. The only
qualitative difference is that Same Sense was higher than
Same Sense ●
Different Sense in Exp. 2, whereas a trend in the opposite
direction was found in Exp. 1. Even given this difference,
Same, Unrelated ●
the experiments—with and without feedback—had much
Different, Unrelated ●
the same results.
Unrelated ●
Same, Related ●
Novel ●
Same Sense ●
Experiment 2 Unrelated ●
new for new) as a function of the current item’s oldness, the Previous Incorrect ●
0.70
(Intercept) 0.29 4.31 <.001 ●
Accuracy
0.65
Prev. Correct 0.37 5.39 <.001
0.60 ●
Previous Old 0.13 1.53 =.13 ●
● ●
0.55
Current Old 0.37 4.60 <.001
●
0.50
Feedback 0.16 1.73 =.08
PrevCorr*PrevOld -0.58 -0.86 =.39 New Old
PrevOld*CurOld 0.08 0.67 =.51 Figure 3: Proportion of correct responses for unstudied
(New) items and studied (Old) items by panel, broken down
PrevCorr*Feedback -0.12 -1.37 =.17 according to the studied/unstudied status of the item on the
PrevOld*Feedback -0.52 -4.49 <.001 previous trial, as well as the correctness of the response on
the previous trial. Note that New|(Previous New) items are
CurrOld*Feedback -0.47 -4.30 <.001
more likely to be correctly rejected than New|(Previous
PrevCorr*PrevOld* Old), regardless of the correctness of the response on the
1.06 6.88 <.001
CurrOld previous trial. Similarly, Old|Old accuracy is greater than
PrevCorr*PrevOld* Old|New.
0.50 3.43 <.001
Feedback
Previous Correct ●
PrevCorr*CurrOld* Previous Incorrect
0.26 1.85 =.07 ●
Feedback
New Old
PrevOld*CurrOld*
1.00 6.01 <.001
Feedback New Old
PrevCorr*PrevOld* 0.75
-0.89 -4.22 <.001 ●
CurrOld*Feedback
Table 3. Coefficients for accuracy in both experiments. 0.70 ●
Accuracy