St-meds - Buy medications online

Drug Medical Information

AGE AND BEHAVIOR: LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE - STIMULUS PACING - INTERACTION BETWEEN INSPECTION AND ANTICIPATION INTERVALS - A PAIRED-ASSOCIATE STUDY BY MONGE AND HULTSCH

A more recent study—a paired-associate study carried out by Monge and Hultsch (1971)—was designed to determine the relative importance of the time periods used for learning and the time periods for responding. They co-varied each of these periods in the same way: the learning period (inspection interval) and the response period (anticipation interval) were each presented in durations of 2.2, 4.4, and 6.6 seconds. Thus, nine conditions were had in the experiment—the quickest paced condition had both inspection and anticipation intervals at 2.2 seconds, or 4.4 seconds combined; the slowest paced condition had both intervals at 6.6 seconds or 13.2 seconds combined. The remaining seven conditions included all the possible remaining combinations of the three covariations of both intervals.
In agreement with much of the previous conclusions, Monge and Hultsch reported that a longer period of time to inspect or study the stimulus helped both the young (20-39 years) and the older subjects (40-66 years), but not one age group more than the other. Most important, they reported that there is no interaction between the two types of intervals.
. . . the total time available per item [i.e., the sum of the anticipation and inspection intervals] is not differentially important to people of different ages. Only that portion of the total time allotted to the anticipation interval [response time] makes for age differences (Monge and Hultsch, 1971).
*309\220\8*