以行為及事件相關腦電位實驗探討組織化歷程 對測驗促進後續學習效應的影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：17

、訪客IP：18.119.118.99

姓名

王忻怡(Sin-Yi Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

認知與神經科學研究所

論文名稱

以行為及事件相關腦電位實驗探討組織化歷程對測驗促進後續學習效應的影響
(The organizational processing in test-potentiated learning: Behavioral and ERP studies.)

相關論文

★ 意旁結合度、意旁表意透明度對中文閱讀的影響	★ 以行為及事件相關電位探討中文雙字詞的記憶聯結錯誤
★ 項目指示遺忘效果的行為與事件相關電位研究	★ 項目指示遺忘作業中記憶登錄及提取歷程的行為及事件相關腦電位研究
★ 以語意促發作業探討項目指示遺忘中線索對於記憶登錄歷程影響之行為及事件相關腦電位研究	★ 特定與非特定來源記憶提取的行為及事件相關腦電位
★ 以行為及事件相關腦電位探討處理層次與聯結性登錄方式對記憶連結錯誤之影響	★ 中文字詞辨識的語音運作單位
★ 由語意透明度所引發的再認記憶鏡像效應：行為與事件相關腦電位研究	★ 登錄作業對於中文雙字詞語意透明度在再認記憶中所引發鏡像效應之影響：行為及事件相關腦電位實驗
★ 以事件相關腦電位探討細節性與概要性記憶的提取導向	★ 以行為及事件相關腦電位實驗探討前瞻記憶線索出現機率對於前瞻干擾效果的影響
★ 以跨顱電刺激與事件相關腦電位探討左側後頂葉腦區於再認記憶中所扮演之角色	★ 測驗表現回饋對測驗效應之調控的行為與事件相關腦電位研究
★ 以非侵入式腦刺激探討左後側頂葉與情節記憶提取之因果關係	★ 中文假字形聲限制高低對於試誤與無誤學習之影響的行為與事件相關腦電位研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究探討測驗過程中涉及的組織化歷程是否為「測驗促進後續學習效應」的機制，亦即測驗的記憶提取過程中對材料組織、架構處理的歷程，是否即為測驗提升後續學習的成效進而對於記憶表現有所助益的原因。研究中的三個實驗藉由呈現不同組織程度的實驗材料，以操弄受試者所涉入的組織化歷程，達到探討此假設的目的。實驗一中受試者學習「無關字詞」以及「隨機排列的類別字詞」，結果發現「重複測驗和重複學習」組別的表現顯著高於其他組別的表現，展現了測驗促進後續學習的效應。然而學習「無關字詞」的受試者以及「隨機排列的類別字詞」的受試者所展現出的測驗促進後續學習效果並無顯著差異，顯現受試者於提取此兩種字詞時可能依然涉入了組織化歷程，進而提升了後續學習的成效。實驗二呈現「依序排列的類別字詞」作為實驗材料，且同類別的字詞使用相同顏色呈現，然而於此情形下，「重複測驗和重複學習」組別的受試者的表現依然顯著高於其他組別。另外，計算受試者對於字詞組織程度的聚類比率分數後發現，接受了重複測驗後的兩組受試者，於最終測驗的聚類比率分數皆顯著高於重複測驗時的聚類比率分數。此結果意味著受試者接受重複測驗後對字詞的組織程度皆會提高，然而只有接受「重複測驗和重複學習」的受試者的整體表現有顯著的提升。實驗三採用與實驗一、二相似的實驗設計及材料，並記錄受試者於初次學習階段以及重複學習階段的腦波。結果發現，重複學習階段的隨後記憶效果展現在前額區、額葉與頂葉的頭皮區域，而展現於頂葉的隨後記憶效果在時序及位置上的分布類似於左側頂葉效果。進一步分析後發現前額區的隨後記憶效果只展現於重複測驗後的重複學習階段，而額葉與頂葉的隨後記憶效果與重複測驗變項間的交互作用也僅展現於重複測驗後的重複學習階段。此結果表示接受重複測驗的確影響了後續學習階段的材料登錄處理歷程，且此影響可能來自於重複學習階段涉入了先前回憶經驗的提取，以及涉及了對材料更深的登錄歷程。綜合來說，本研究認為組織化歷程應不是測驗可提升後續學習成效的主因，而測驗促進後續學習效應可能是由於受試者在重複學習階段涉及了以下的歷程：提取出重複測驗時如何回憶字詞的經驗、細節；涉入了更深的材料登錄歷程，不論受試者是關注於各個字詞的特徵或關注於字詞彼此間的關係。

摘要(英)

This study investigated the organizational processing in test-potentiated learning: why testing benefits retention by potentiating subsequent learning or encoding. To examine whether the test-potentiated learning effect comes from the organizational processing of the materials after test, the types of materials were manipulated among the experiments. Experiment 1 tested this hypothesis by employing unrelated words & randomly categorized words as the study materials. The results showed higher recall rates for the groups that received repeated testing before restudy than for other groups. However, the test-potentiated learning effect did not show the different degrees between unrelated words condition and categorized words condition. These results indicated that the participants might still involve organizational processing when learned randomly categorized words. The categorized words were presented by category in different colors in Experiment 2. However, the recall rates of the group who received repeated testing and repeated studying were still significantly better than other groups. Also, The Adjusted Ratio of Clustering scores of the two groups who have received repeated testing were significantly higher in the final test compare to the repeated test. The results indicated that participants will show stronger organization as long as they receive repeated testing. But stronger organization does not always lead to test-potentiated learning effect. Experiment 3 employed a similar procedure of Experiment 1 & 2, during which ERPs were recorded at the initial/final study. The prefrontal subsequent memory effect(SME) was only found in the final study phase after repeated testing, reflecting that deep processing may involve in the encoding. The frontal & parietal SME was found in both the initial & final study phase, but significant interaction between condition (received testing or not) and SME was only observed in the final study phase after repeated testing, revealing that repeated testing indeed affect subsequent learning. Also, additional semantic processing might be involve in subsequent encoding. In summary, our behavioral results replicated test-potentiated learning effect but do not support the hypothesis that testing potentiate subsequent learning comes from the organizational processing. Neural physiological results suggest that after repeated testing, additional deep processing might involve in subsequent encoding.

關鍵字(中)

★ 測驗促進後續學習效應
★ 組織化歷程
★ 隨後記憶效果
★ 事件相關腦電位

關鍵字(英)

★ test-potentiated learning
★ organizational processing
★ subsequent memory effect
★ event-related potentials

論文目次

摘要 ii
Abstract iv
目錄 viii
圖目錄 x
表目錄 xi
一、緒論 1
1.1測驗效應 2
1.2測驗效應中的材料組織化 4
1.3測驗促進後續學習 7
二、研究目的與假設 13
三、實驗一 15
3.1實驗方法 16
3.2行為資料分析 19
3.3實驗結果 20
3.4討論 26
四、實驗二 28
4.1實驗方法 28
4.2實驗結果 29
4.3討論 32
五、實驗三 33
5.1實驗方法 35
5.2 ERP分析 38
5.3實驗結果 39
5.3.1 行為資料 39
5.3.2 ERP資料 41
5.4討論 47
六、綜合討論 49
參考文獻 56
附錄：各個實驗中的刺激材料 60

參考文獻

鄭瓊英、賴美味、劉英茂 (民62 ), 自能使用兩種語言受試者所得中文及英文的類常模, 中華心理學刊, (15), 81-153.

Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013a). Free recall enhances subsequent learning. Psychon Bull Rev, 20(3), 507-513. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0370-3

Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013b). Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 39(3), 940-945. doi:10.1037/a0029199

Carpenter, S. K., & Delosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34: 268.

Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests to enhance 8th grade students′ retention of U.S. history facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 760-771. doi:10.1002/acp.1507

Cheng, S. K., & Rugg, M. D. (2004). An event-related potential study of two kinds of source judgment errors. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res, 22(1), 113-127. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.003

Congleton, A., & Rajaram, S. (2012). The origin of the interaction between learning method and delay in the testing effect: the roles of processing and conceptual retrieval organization. Mem Cognit, 40(4), 528-539. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0168-y

Izawa, C. (1966). Reinforcement-test sequences in paired-associate learning Psychological Reports, 18(3), 879–919.
Kamp, S. M., Bader, R., & Mecklinger, A. (2017). ERP Subsequent Memory Effects Differ between Inter-Item and Unitization Encoding Tasks. Front Hum Neurosci, 11, 30. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00030

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968. doi:10.1126/science.1152408

Masson, M. E. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1981). The role of organizational processes in long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 7(2), 100–110.

McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399-414. doi:10.1037/a0021782

McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 494-513. doi:10.1080/09541440701326154

Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519-533.

Mulligan, N. W. (2001). Generation and hypermnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 436-450.

Mulligan, N. W. (2005). Total retrieval time and hypermnesia: investigating the benefits of multiple recall tests. Psychol Res, 69(4), 272-284. doi:10.1007/s00426-004-0178-5

Nelson, S. M., Arnold, K. M., Gilmore, A. W., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Neural signatures of test-potentiated learning in parietal cortex. J Neurosci, 33(29), 11754-11762. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0960-13.2013

Otten, L. J., & Rugg, M. D. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates of memory encoding are task-dependent. Cognitive Brain Research, 12(1), 11–18. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00015-5

Puff, C. R., (1982). Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition. Academic Press

Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330(6002), 335. doi:10.1126/science.1191465

Roediger, H. L., 3rd, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cogn Sci, 15(1), 20-27. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003

Roediger, H. L., 3rd, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci., 17(3):249-55.

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814.

Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid tests. Memory, 22(7), 784-802. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.831454

Wagner, A. D., Shannon, B. J., Kahn, I., & Buckner, R. L. (2005). Parietal lobe contributions to episodic memory retrieval. Trends Cogn Sci, 9(9), 445-453. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.001

Wheeler, M. A., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (1992). Disparate Effects of Repeated Testing: Reconciling Ballard′s (1913) and Bartlett′s (1932) Results. Psychological Science, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Jul., 1992), pp. 240-245.

Wissman, K. T., & Rawson, K. A. (2018). Test-potentiated learning: three independent replications, a disconfirmed hypothesis, and an unexpected boundary condition. Memory, 26(4), 406-414. doi:10.1080/09658211.2017.1350717

Zaromb, F. M., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Mem Cognit, 38(8), 995-1008. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.995

指導教授

鄭仕坤(Shih-Kuen Cheng)

審核日期

2019-1-25

推文