Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30168093›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2019

Learning new meanings for known words: Perturbation of original meanings and retention of new meanings.

Xiaoping Fang, Charles A Perfetti

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xiaoping FangLearning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA. xpfang4@gmail.com.
Charles A PerfettiLearning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA. perfetti@pitt.edu.

Funding

Lexical Processes and Comprehension Skill: ERP and Behavioral Studies of Word-to-R01HD058566 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI PERFETTI, CHARLES A. · 2009 to 2012
$1.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD058566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Learning a new, unrelated meaning for a known word faces competition from the word's original meaning. Moreover, the connection of the word with its original meaning also shows a subtle form of interference, a perturbation, when tested immediately after learning. However, the long-term effects of both types of interference are unclear. The present study paired both high and low frequency words with new unrelated meanings, testing the fate of new and original meanings on three different days over one week as a function of word familiarity. The results were that learners maintained memory for new meanings of high frequency words better than the new meanings of low frequency words over one week. Following learning, meaning decisions on high frequency words that required the original meaning of the trained word were delayed relative to decisions on control words - but only when testing was immediate and the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between the trained word and its original meaning probe was 200 ms. When the SOA was 500 ms or when the test was delayed by one day or one week, no effect occurred. The findings indicate that in the learning of new meanings for known words, word familiarity benefits long-term retention of new meanings. The facilitation effect occurs along with a perturbation effect, in which the original meaning of a familiar word is made momentarily less accessible immediately after learning.

Indexed as

PsycholinguisticsSemanticsAdultFemaleHumansLearningMaleRecognition, PsychologyRetention, PsychologyYoung AdultMemoryPerturbationRetentionWord frequencyWord learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.