378 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS

findings of Marks and Miller (1964). It is con-

HR
FIG. 1. Memory operating characteristics for grammatical (G),
anomalous (A), and ungrammatical (U) word strings.
These curves are shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen
that the curves are well separated from one an-
other, and that recognition accuracy increased in
the following order: U, A, and G. A numerical
index of degree of sensitivity, called ds, was calcu-
lated according to the description by Egan and
Clarke (1966). This is a measure of recognition
accuracy which is relatively stable in the presence
of criterion differences. The obtained degree of
sensitivity values for the G, A, and U conditions,
respectively, were 2.18, 1.00, and .52.
These data are in agreement with the recall
cluded that retention of word strings is a negative
function of their degree of linguistic violation.
The results also indicate that recognition is not on
the basis of certain key words, since there would
then have been no differences among the strings.
Whether the obtained retention differences are to
be attributed to differential initial acquisition, or
to differential forgetting rates, or to both cannot
be determined from the present data. Since Miller
and Isard (1963) obtained the same order of re-
sults with an intelligibility test of such materials,
where S was to repeat each string aloud as soon as
it was given, it might be argued that the above
retention effects were a reflection of different ac-
quisition levels. However, since the intelligibility
test is a "production" measure similar to a recall
test, it would also permit a reconstruction bias to
operate, so that such a conclusion must remain
tentative.
REFERENCES
EGAN, J. P., & CLARKE, F. R. Psychophysics and signal
detection. In J. B. Sidowski (Ed.), Experimental methods
and instrumentation in psychology. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1966.
EGAN, J. P., SCHULMAN, A. I., & GREENBERG, G. Z. Oper-
ating characteristics determined by binary decisions and by
ratings. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1959,
31, 768-773.
MARKS, L. E., & MILLER, G. A. The role of semantic and
syntactic constraints in the memorization of English sen-
tences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1964, 3, 1-5.
MILLER, G. A., & ISASD, S. Some perceptual consequences of
linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 1963, 2, 217-228.
(Received March 23, 1968)

Journal of Experimental Psychology

1969, Vol. 79, No. 2, 378-380

ASSOCIATIVE REACTION TIME OF RESPONSE TERMS

IN PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING *

RONALD LEY * AND LEONORA ANDERSON

State University of New York at Albany

The present experiment supplemented an earlier study in which it was snown

that trigrams of short-latency associative reaction time (RT) were learned
faster than trigrams of long-latency RT, but that the effect of RT was
limited to low-meaningfulness trigrams. The present study replicated the
earlier study with the exception of a substitution of long-latency, high-mean-
ingfulness non-English language trigrams for the long-latency nigh-meaning-
fulness English language words of the list used in the previous study. The
new list of the present study resulted in a faster learning rate for short-latency
trigrams of both low and high meaningfulness.

In an earlier study, Ley (1968) measured the
associative reaction time (the time elapsing between
the presentation of a verbal unit and the first
iThis research was supported in part by a State University
of 2 New York Research Foundation Faculty Fellowship.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald Ley, De-
paitriment of Psychology, State University of New York at
[bany, Albany, New York 12203.
Alb;
association produced) of a sample of low- and high-
meaningfulness CVC trigrams. Using mean asso-
ciative reaction time (RT) as the primary criterion,
four trigrams were selected from the high-meaning-
fulness group (HM)two from the short-latency
(SL) end of the RT distribution (gen and hel)
and two from the long-latency (LL) end of the RT
 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
distribution (rug and ton). The same procedure
was employed in obtaining two short-latency RT
trigrams (liw and yae) and two long-latency RT
trigrams (guh and koj) from the low-meaningful-
ness (LM) sample. The results of this study sup-
ported the hypothesis that paired-associate (PA)
learning rate is a function of the RT of response
terms, i.e., trigrams of short-latency RT were
learned faster than trigrams of long-latency RT.
However, the effect of RT was limited to low-
meaningfulness trigrams. Since the long-latency
high-meaningfulness trigrams were rug and ton,
the only English language words in the list, it was
suggested that the uniqueness of words presented
within a group of nonsense syllables might facilitate
the learning of the words. It was the purpose of
the present study to control for this factor by
limiting the response terms of the PA list to non-
English language CVC trigrams. The present
study is, therefore, a replication of the earlier one
(Ley, 1968) except that response terms were
limited to non-English language CVC trigrams.
In keeping with the earlier study, it was predicted
that in a PA learning task, in which response terms
are equated on meaningfulness, trigrams of short-
latency RT will be learned faster than trigrams
of long-latency RT, and that the difference between
the learning rates will be greater, the shorter the
presentation rate.
Method.The 6"s were 60 undergraduate volun-
teers from the State University of New York at
Albany (30 females and 30 males), naive with re-
spect to previous experience in verbal learning ex-
periments.
The materials used in the present study differed
from those used by Ley (1968) in the following
ways: The two English language trigrams (rug
and ton) of the first list were replaced with two
non-English language trigrams (lie and mol, mean
RT = 2.S6 sec., mean m' = 3.21). The stimulus
terms used in the present study were eight two-
digit numbers selected on the basis of approximately
equal association value (Battig & Spera, 1962)
with the restriction that each number consist of
two different digits and that no two numbers begin
or end with the same digit. Also, numbers con-
taining the digit "1" were excluded. To control
for the possible confounding of stimulus effects on
the learning rate of response terms, four lists were
constructed, each list containing the same stimulus
terms and same response terms, but in different
combinations. Terms were paired such that the
means of the rated association values of the stim-
ulus terms for each set of response terms (SL-
HM, SL-LM, LL-HM, and LL-LM) were ap-
proximately equal.
The procedure followed in the present study was
the same as that followed by Ley (1968) except
that the termination of a learning session for a
given 5" occurred at the end of one errorless trial
or at the end of SO trials, rather than 40 trials,
if an errorless trial had not occurred.
379
y y 2 4 NX 8
PRESENTATION TIME IN SECONDS
FIG. 1 Mean number of trials to first correct anticipation
for SL-HM, SL-LM, LL-HM, and LL-LM trigrams as a
function of three presentation times.
In keeping with the earlier study, the design of
the present study was a mixed factorial in which
presentation rate (2 sec., 4 sec., and 8 sec.) was a
between-Ss variable and RT (short latency and
long latency) and meaningfulness (low and high),
within-.S's variables.
Results and discussion.A plot of the mean
number of trials to the first correct anticipation for
the four groups of trigrams (SL-HM, SL-LM,
LL-HM, and LL-LM) as a function of presenta-
tion time is given in Fig. 1. Consistent with the
data of the previous study (Ley, 1968), the short-
latency RT trigrams were learned in fewer trials
than the long-latency RT trigrams, F (1, 57) =
12.68, p < .001; the high-meaningfulness trigrams
were learned in fewer trials than the low-meaning-
fulness trigrams, F (1, 57) =45.97, /><.001; and
the mean number of trials to the first correct antici-
pation varied inversely with presentation rate, F (2,
57) = 37.62, p < .001.
Contrary to the findings of the earlier study,
the RT X Meaningfulness interaction was not sig-
nificant, F (1, 57) = 1.67, p > .05, thus supporting
the primary hypothesis of the present study: that
RT has an effect on the learning rate of both low-
and high-meaningfulness trigrams when English
language trigrams are excluded from the list.
Consistent with the data of the earlier study, the
Meaningfulness X Presentation Rate interaction
was significant, F (1, 57) =6.85, p < .005, as was
the RT X Presentation Rate interaction F (1, 57)
= 3.12, /><.10. These findings indicate that the
effect of meaningfulness and RT on learning rate
is greater for short presentation rates (e.g., 2 sec)
and lesser for longer presentation rates (e.g., 4
sec. and 8 sec.). The absence of a significant RT
X Meaningfulness X Presentation Rate interaction
in the present study is a result of the absence of
a significant RT X Meaningfulness interaction
which in the earlier study was more pronounced
at the 2-sec. presentation rate than either the 4-sec.
or 8-sec. rate.
380 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS

Additional agreement with the earlier study was REFERENCES

found in the analysis of the total learning time, in
which the differences between the total time re-
quired for learning under the three presentation
rates (2 sec., 4 sec., and 8 sec.) were not sig-
nificant, P (2, 57) = 1.46, p > .05.
BATTIO, W. F., & SPERA, A. J. Rated associated values of
numbers from 0-100. Journal of Verbal Learning and Ver-
bal Behavior, 1962, 1, 200-202.
LEY, R. Associative reaction time, meaningfulness, and pre-
sentation rate in paired-associate learning. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 1968, 78, 285-291.
(Received March 25, 1968)

Journal of Experimental Psychology

1969, Vol. 79, No. 2, 380-382

CATEGORY CLUSTERING IN INCIDENTAL LEARNING 1

FRED SHIMA 2
University of California, Los Angeles

Category clustering was investigated in a Type 2 incidental learning design.

Incidental clustering was noted, but no consistent similarities between inten-
tional and incidental learning as a function of list presentations and list
arrangement were found. Number of identified categories was related to
amount of recall and clustering, and most 5s reported that they noticed cate-
gories initially in the training stage. Those rejected as pseudoincidental 5s
showed greater incidental and less intentional learning than the true inci-
dental 5s.

Postman, Adams, and Bohm (1956) and Mayz-
ner and Tresselt (1962) found associative cluster-
ing in incidental (INC) learning. Although such
clustering may be explained by nonmediational
S-R links, it suggests that INC learning may not
be a low-level, simple, and peripheral process, and
that implicit associative activity (mediation) trig-
gered by test items is possible in the INC condi-
tion.
Here, INC category clustering was examined
since it hints more strongly at INC mediation than
associative clustering. Instead of discrete S-R
pairs, several words are grouped because they im-
plicitly evoke a common category name. For ex-
ample, pea-carrot-potato are clustered because they
evoke "vegetable."
A Type 2 INC design was used where 5s simul-
taneously underwent INC and intentional (INT)
learning so that the similarities between the two
types of learning were checked. The relationship
between degree of category identification and
amount of clustering, and the differences between
pseudo-INC and true INC ,9s also were investi-
gated.
Method.One hundred and ninety-three 5s from
introductory psychology courses were run individ-
ually. Of these, 120 were retained in the experi-
mental design as true INC learners and 73 were
1
This paper was based on a dissertation submitted to the
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los
Angeles, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
PhD degree. The author is particularly indebted to Charles
Nakamura for his kind concern as chairman and to Irving
Maltzman, John Houston, and Lowell Storms for their help
as members of the doctoral committee.
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Fred Shima who is
now at Southwest Regional Laboratory, 11300 La Cienega
Blvd., Inglewood, California 90304.
discarded as pseudo-INC 5s, based on a post-
experimental self-rating scale on having made ef-
forts to learn the INC material.
A 5 X 2 X 2 factorial design was used: 1, 2, 3,
4, or 5 presentations of a list before the recall test,
blocked or random arrangement of list items, and
either INT or INC word pronounced first. Words
from the same category were presented contigu-
ously in the blocked set, while no two successive
items from the same category were given in the
random set. The INT and INC words were
shown simultaneously and 5 was instructed to
pronounce aloud either the INT or INC stimulus
first.
Each 5 was assigned to 1 of 20 independent cells
according to a random order derived by drawing
slips from a bag. Six blocks of 20 5s were run
so that all of the 20 conditions appeared once in
each block. If an 5 was discarded as pseudo-INC
the next S, and succeeding ones if necessary, were
run in the same cell until a true INC 5 was ob-
tained.
Two 24-word lists, A and B, were formed from
the Connecticut cultural norms for verbal items in
43 categories (Cohen, Bousfield, & Whitmarsh,
1957). Each list had 3 categories of 8 words each,
all items being high-associative responses to their
respective category names.
Words were shown in pairs, one word atop the
other, with List A items always on top and List B
words on the bottom. To discourage top-bottom
combination learning, different pairings occurred on
successive trials. When a blocked or random ar-
rangement was used, it was done for both top and
bottom words, i.e., both INT and INC stimuli had
the same type of arrangement for a given S.