Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Nonsense syllables were aurally presented once at constant or variable intensities in SPL (55, 70, and/or 85 db). Free recall after instruction to learn (INT), to judge intelligibility (IRR), or to listen (INC) was unaffected. Rather, Grice and Hunter's (2) hypothesis that intensity effects in human conditioning are substantially greater in repeated measurements designs (i.e., with variable presentation), was supported only by an insubstantial trend. Serial position curves from the three learning conditions indicated a greater recency than primacy effect in recall, only for IRR. Thus, a recency effect in INC seems contingent rather upon attention being directed away from to-be-relevant aspects on the stimuli than a characteristic of INC, per se.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartlett

M. S.

The use of transformations. Biometrics, 1947, 3, 39–52.

Grice

G. R.

Hunter

J. J.

Stimulus intensity effects depend upon the type of experimental design. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 71, 247–256.

Helson

Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper, 1964.

Licklider

J. C. R.

Miller

G. A.

The perception of speech. In Stevens

S. S.

(Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1951. Pp. 104–105.

Passey

G. E.

Sekyra

Variable reinforcement versus constant reinforcement in eyelid conditioning. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 13, 99–102.

Passey

G. E.

Sekyra

Geometric and arithmetic means as indexes of UCS intensity with variable reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, 67, 7–10.

Postman

Adams

Studies in incidental learning: VI. Intra-serial interference. J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 54, 153–167.

Spence

K. W.

Haggard

D. F.

Ross

L. E.

UCS intensity and the associative (habit) strength of the eyelid CR. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 404–411.

Stimulus Intensity Effects on Verbal Learning

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References