Abstract
Research on how information should be studied during inductive category learning has identified both interleaving of categories and blocking by category as beneficial for learning. Previous work suggests that this mixed evidence can be reconciled by taking into account within- and between-category similarity relations. In this article, we present a new moderating factor. Across two experiments, one group of participants studied categories actively (by studying the objects without correct category assignment and actively figuring out what the category was), either interleaved or blocked. Another group studied the same categories passively (objects and correct category assignment were simultaneously provided). Results from a subsequent generalization task show that whether interleaved or blocked study results in better learning depends on whether study is active or passive. One account of these results is that different presentation sequences and tasks promote different patterns of attention to stimulus components. Passive learning and blocking promote attending to commonalities within categories, while active learning and interleaving promote attending to differences between categories.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 442–481.
Ashby, F. G., Queller, S., & Berretty, P. M. (1999). On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(6), 1178–99.
Braithwaite, D. W., Carvalho, P. F., de Leeuw, J., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R.L. (2014) Effectiveness of learner-regulated study sequence. Manuscript in preparation.
Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 671–682.
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Putting category learning in order: category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 481–495.
Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2004). Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: A comparison of inference learning and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 216–226.
Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 608–28.
Higgins, E. J., & Ross, B. H. (2011). Comparisons in category learning: How best to compare for? In L. Carlson, C. Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1388–1393). Austin: Cogntive Science Society.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–92.
Kurtz, K. H., & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 239.
Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592–613.
Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848.
Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 356–363.
Schyns, P. G., Goldstone, R. L., & Thibaut, J. P. (1998). The development of features in object concepts. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(1), 1–17. Discussion 17–54.
Soto, F. A. & Wasserman, E.A. (2010) Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: A common-elements model. Psychological Review, 117(2), 349–381.
Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 750–763.
Whitman, J. R., & Garner, W. R. (1963). Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 195–202.
Williams, P. (1997). Prototypes, Exemplars, and Object Recognition. New Haven: Yale.
Wong, A. C.-N., Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2009). Conditions for face-like expertise with objects: Becoming a Ziggerin expert – but which type? Psychological Science, 20(9), 1108–1117.
Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776–795.
Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 16–27.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation REESE grant 0910218 and Department of Education IES grant R305A1100060. P.F.C. was also supported by Graduate Training Fellowship SFRH/BD/78083/2011 from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), co-sponsored by the European Social Found. The authors would like to thank the Percepts and Concepts Lab members for discussion and Spenser Benge, Abigail Kost, Alifya Saify, and Shivani Vasudeva for their assistance with data collection. The authors are also thankful to Bob McMurray and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript. “Freeble” stimuli images are courtesy of Michael J. Tarr, Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition and Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, http://www.tarrlab.org/. “Ziggerin” stimuli images are courtesy of Alan Wong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, http://ww2.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/~mael/Stimuli.html.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carvalho, P.F., Goldstone, R.L. The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 281–288 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0676-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0676-4