Data

Trial Data Homographs

The University of Queensland
Dr Jack Leggett (Aggregated by) Dr Jack Leggett (Aggregated by) Dr Jenny Burt (Aggregated by) Dr Jenny Burt (Aggregated by)
Viewed: [[ro.stat.viewed]] Cited: [[ro.stat.cited]] Accessed: [[ro.stat.accessed]]
ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Adc&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2FANDS&rft_id=info:doi10.14264/c18b259&rft.title=Trial Data Homographs&rft.identifier=RDM ID: 3499e680-ff06-11eb-bfea-99f95b19d468&rft.publisher=The University of Queensland&rft.description=The dataset consists of the trial by trials data (items and responses) for each of three experiments. Participants learned to associate target words with cue words in the corrective feedback paradigm. Guessing the target from the cue was compared with reading cue-target pairs as a study method. Participants were asked to recall the target given the cue word. In all experiments cues were homographs (e.g., bank) and the targets were in the typical sense (money) or the less typical sense (river). In Experiments 1 and 2 the benefit of guessing was greater for targets in the typical sense. In Experiment 3 all targets were in the typical sense, and prime phrases preceding the cue biased the typical vs. atypical meaning of the cue. When guesses were compatible with the prime, accuracy at test was higher for typical meanings. The results do not support the idea that surprising feedback is better encoded.&rft.creator=Dr Jack Leggett&rft.creator=Dr Jack Leggett&rft.creator=Dr Jenny Burt&rft.creator=Dr Jenny Burt&rft.date=2021&rft_rights= https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/deposit-your-data/license-reuse-data-agreement&rft_subject=eng&rft_subject=Educational Psychology&rft_subject=PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES&rft_subject=PSYCHOLOGY&rft_subject=Sensory Processes, Perception and Performance&rft.type=dataset&rft.language=English Access the data
Cite Saved to MyRDA Save to MyRDA

Contact Information

[email protected]
School of Psychology

Full description

The dataset consists of the trial by trials data (items and responses) for each of three experiments. Participants learned to associate target words with cue words in the corrective feedback paradigm. Guessing the target from the cue was compared with reading cue-target pairs as a study method. Participants were asked to recall the target given the cue word. In all experiments cues were homographs (e.g., bank) and the targets were in the typical sense (money) or the less typical sense (river). In Experiments 1 and 2 the benefit of guessing was greater for targets in the typical sense. In Experiment 3 all targets were in the typical sense, and prime phrases preceding the cue biased the typical vs. atypical meaning of the cue. When guesses were compatible with the prime, accuracy at test was higher for typical meanings. The results do not support the idea that surprising feedback is better encoded.

Issued: 2021

This dataset is part of a larger collection

Click to explore relationships graph
Help

Related Data

Related People

Related Grants and Projects

Related Websites

Subjects
Educational Psychology | Psychology | Psychology and Cognitive Sciences | Sensory Processes, Perception and Performance | eng |

User Contributed Tags    

Login to tag this record with meaningful keywords to make it easier to discover

Other Information
Identifiers
ACN 633 798 857