Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 281–288 | Cite as

The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study

  • Paulo F. Carvalho
  • Robert L. Goldstone
Brief Report

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.

Keywords

Interleaving Blocking Category learning Comparison Inductive learning 

Notes

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.

Supplementary material

13423_2014_676_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (190 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 189 KB)
13423_2014_676_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (38 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 38.1 KB)

References

  1. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby, F. G., Queller, S., & Berretty, P. M. (1999). On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(6), 1178–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 671–682.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 608–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kurtz, K. H., & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Williams, P. (1997). Prototypes, Exemplars, and Object Recognition. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776–795.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations