Transcript Effects on Massed and Space Repetition and Recognition Memory

Effects on Massed and Spaced
Repetition and Recognition
Memory in Spanish-English
Bilinguals
Diana G. Manzanera
Supervisor: Dr. Wendy S. Francis
University of Texas at El Paso
Supported by a Teachers for a New Era Mini-Grant
Purpose
 The
purpose of this study was to
determine the difference in spacing effect
between the dominant and non-dominant
language.
Introduction

There are no studies that compare performance
on recognition memory tasks in the dominant
and non-dominant language
 Explicit memory performance in bilinguals might
be compared to the effects of divided attention
and word frequency



Divided attention impairs recognition performance
Low-frequency words are easier to discriminate on a
recognition test than high frequency words
These suggest opposite effects for recognition in the
non-dominant language
Introduction

Spacing effect: demonstrated that words that are
repeated with intervening items between them
increase performance on explicit memory tasks
such as recognition and free recall tests.
 Spacing effect is influenced by divided attention
and word frequency.


Divided attention eliminates the spacing effect in a
recognition test.
Low frequency words that are spaced are more easily
discriminated in a recognition test than low frequency
words that are massed.
Example

Massed
•
•
•
•
Apple
Pillow
Apple
Horse

Spaced
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Apple
Pillow
Horse
Pool
Butterfly
Carrot
Lizard
Apple
Predictions
 According

Words that are presented in a non-dominant
language will show worse performance on
recognition tasks and eliminate or reduce the
spacing effect
 According

to divided attention effect
to word frequency effect
Words that are presented in the non-dominant
language will be more easily discriminated
and show a spacing effect.
Participants

Adolescents





Spanish-English
bilingual students in
the TexPrep summer
science program.
N= 55
Ages 11-17
43 Spanish dominant
12 English dominant

Adults





Spanish-English
bilingual UTEP students
N= 64
Ages 17-48
40 Spanish dominant
24 English dominant
Design

The study was a 2 (language) x 4 (conditions)
within subjects design
•
•
•
•


Once (1st-half)
Once (2nd-half)
Twice Massed
Twice Spaced
Non-studied items (foils on the recognition
test)
Test had 50% studied, 50% non-studied items
Procedure
Two sessions (English-Spanish)

Adolescents


Language background
Study task
• List of words on worksheet
• Copied each word on a
blank space next to it



Adults



• Words presented one at a
time
• Copied each word in a
booklet
Distracter task
Recognition test
• List of words on a
worksheet
• Circled words that they
studied during the study
phase
Consent form
Language background
Study task


Distracter task
Recognition test
• Words presented one at a
time
• Press YES if the word was
presented in the study form
or NO otherwise
Adolescent Results
Proportion YES responsi
Hit rates and False Alarm Adolescents
80
70
60
Once (1st-half)
50
Once (2nd-half)
40
Twice Massed
30
Twice Spaced
20
False Alarm
10
0
Dominant
Non-dominant
Language
.
Adolescent Results
Signal Detection Analysis
Respond No
Respond Yes
Not Studied
1st Half
2nd Half
Massed
Spaced
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Z score relative to noise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Adult Results
Prop YES responi
Hit Rates and False Alarm Adults
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
once (1st-half)
once (2nd-half)
Twice Massed
Twice Spaced
False Alarm
Dominant
Non-dominant
Languages
Adult Results
Signal Detection Analysis
Respond No
Respond Yes
Not Studied
1st Half
2nd Half
Massed
Spaced
-4
-3
-2
-1
Z score relative to noise
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Adult Results
Response time (m
Response Time Adults
1060
1040
1020
1000
980
960
940
920
900
880
860
Once (1st-half)
Once (2nd-half)
Twice Massed
Twice Spaced
Dominant
Non-dominant
Language
Summary of Results





No significant difference between dominant and nondominant language.
Significant difference between words that appeared once
and words that appeared twice
No significant difference between words appeared in the
1st-half and words appeared in 2nd-half.
No significant difference between massed and spaced
repetitions
No significant interaction between language and
conditions.

The limitations of the study did not let us compare the spacing
effect in the dominant and non-dominant language.
Discussion

Weak support for attention account


Comparison of adolescents and adults




Slightly better performance in words presented in dominant
language than in non-dominant language.
Adolescents and adults showed similar patterns of performance.
Adolescents were more conservative in answering YES.
Groups had nearly identical d’ for once-presented words, but
adults were better at discriminating twice-presented words.
Future experiments



Increase the number of repetitions for spaced words
Massed words should be immediately followed by their repetition
Increase the time of the distracter task (retention interval)
Acknowledgements
 Dr.
Wendy S. Francis
 Teachers for a New Era Mini-Grant
 Dr. Sally Blake and the TexPrep program