When we are talking about memorizing some material or developing a skill, and when they want to achieve the maximum level of learning with a minimum duration of exercises, which is preferable - to repeat the exercises continuously until the learning criterion is reached, or to distribute the exercises over time? The answer to this question is important for both practical application psychology, as well as in terms of the theoretical issues that it raises. The first work on this problem, posed by Ebbinghaus (1885), was carried out by Jost (1897). Two subjects, B and S, repeated a series of nonsense syllables 30 times under two different conditions:

1) all 30 repetitions were carried out on the same day, the next day, repeated memorization was carried out, which continued until the first error-free reproduction;

2) all 30 repetitions were distributed over 3 consecutive days, 10 repetitions per day; on the 4th day, as in the first case, repeated memorization was carried out.

(The expressions "concentrated" and "distributed" are only descriptive terms characterizing the temporal conditions of learning. The first refers to learning in which the task is performed at a constant pace with minimal time intervals between the stimulus and the attempt to reproduce it. The second relates to learning, in which comparatively more significant systematic breaks are introduced between the individual stages of the exercise, called "rest" phases. These expressions are conditional and do not designate two types of learning that are different in nature, they determine only the features of the temporal organization of learning. "Distributed" in relation to one type of learning will be "concentrated" when compared with another)

The results obtained indicate that the number of trials required for repetition is somewhat greater when all 30 repetitions fall on the same day.

Jost explains these results as follows: by repeating the series of syllables, the subject establishes associations between various elements of the material; with distributed learning, "old" associations are updated, the "prescription" of associations is the greater, the more time has passed from exercise to reproduction. With concentrated learning, repetitions actualize the newest associations. Taking into account the much greater efficiency of distributed learning, we can assume that of two associations of the same strength, of which one is older than the other, the old association (Jost's law) will be better updated with subsequent repetition.

A. Experimental verification of Jost's law

Of the work undertaken to verify the truth of Jost's law, we will consider the work carried out in 1941 by Yutz. The main difficulty in this case is to determine what is meant by "equal strength" of associations. This difficulty can only be resolved if one accepts an operational definition: it is generally accepted, for example, that the strength of associations between elements of one series is equal to the strength of associations between elements of another, previously learned series, when the number of errors or the number of repetitions during repeated learning is practically the same for both series. or when the number of correctly reproduced elements is the same. These three "strength of association" criteria were used by Yutz in testing Jost's law.

The experiment was carried out under the following conditions: 15 subjects memorized rows of 12 meaningless syllables using the anticipation method. The study design provided for 3 levels of learning and different time intervals between the first and repeated learning (see table on page 247).

When studying preservation by the method of repeated memorization, the criterion was the first error-free and complete (without gaps) reproduction. The index of reproduction was the number of exact anticipations at the first attempt of repeated memorization.

On fig. 7 shows the dynamics of retention, and the indicator of retention was the average number of errors during repeated memorization. Curves I, II, III correspond to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees of learning. The analysis of these curves makes it possible to establish several points related to repeated learning, where the slope of the curves changes depending on the time interval separating the initial and repeated learning, and the number of errors almost does not change. These points are located near the intersection of the curves with two lines A and B parallel to the abscissa axis; these lines define two error levels. At level A, there are points III 6 (rows re-learned after 6 seconds), II 40 (rows re-learned after 40 minutes) and I 120 (rows re-learned after 120 minutes); the average number of errors is 29.71, respectively; 32.37 and 31.33. In the same way, the three points located at level B correspond to the series, with repeated memorization of which 35.05 errors were made (point L), 35.77 errors (point III 10) and 34.60 errors (point II 60).

Rice. 7. Curves I, II, III correspond to the three degrees of learning in the Yutz experiment. Dashed lines A and B indicate 2 levels of errors during repeated learning. Points III 6 ", II 40" and I 120" at level A and points L, III 10 and II 60 at level B correspond to almost the same number of errors made during repeated memorization (according to Yutz, 1941, p. 17)

The confirmation of Yost's law implies that, for the same number of errors, the retention determined by the first trial of relearning should be the better, the longer the time separating the first relearning from relearning. The curves in fig. 8 confirm this regularity. It can be seen that the increase in retention, measured by the difference between the number of correctly anticipated syllables in the second and first relearning trials, increases as the duration of the time interval elapsed after learning increases. Yutz has shown that similar results are obtained when the number of trials required for relearning, or the number of elements correctly anticipated in the first relearning trial, is used as a criterion of "equal strength".

B. Types of distribution of exercises

Yost's law can be formulated differently, namely: ceteris paribus, fewer trials are required to achieve the mastering criterion when memorizing material by the method of distributed learning than by the method of concentrated learning ( This law has been confirmed by numerous studies both on animals (mice - Yerks, 1907; chickens - Katz and Revesch, 1908; pond snail and littorina - Pieron, 1913; rats - Ulrich, 1915; Lashley, 1918; Warden, 1923; Mayer and Stone, 1931, and many others), and on a person in a wide variety of situations (drawing a star in a mirror image - Lorde, 1930; typing - Beech, 1908; Pyle, 1914; rows of numbers - Pieron, 1913; labyrinth with a rod - Carr , 1919; nonsense syllables - Jost, 1897; Muller and Pilzeker, 1900; Pieron, 1913; Hovland, 1938, 1940; Underwood, 1951, and others)). However, from the very beginning it is necessary to distinguish between two types of distribution of exercises: 1) time intervals between elements of the material; 2) time intervals between subsequent samples.

a) The role of time intervals between elements of the material. A series of 12 meaningless syllables can be presented to the subject in such a way that the constant intervals between two adjacent syllables will be equal to 2 or 4 seconds, and the intervals between successive presentations of the series will be 6 seconds. Hovland (1938) showed that when memorization is carried out in a rhythm equal to 4 seconds, the number of errors decreases markedly; curves II and II ( This law has been confirmed by numerous studies both on animals (mice - Yerks, 1907; chickens - Katz and Revesch, 1908; pond snail and littorina - Pieron, 1913; rats - Ulrich, 1915; Lashley, 1918; Warden, 1923; Mayer and Stone, 1931, and many others), and on a person in a wide variety of situations (drawing a star in a mirror image - Lorde, 1930; typing - Beech, 1908; Pyle, 1914; rows of numbers - Pieron, 1913; labyrinth with a rod - Carr , 1919; nonsense syllables - Yost, 1897; Muller and Pilzeker, 1900; Pieron, 1913; Hovland, 1938, 1940; Underwood, 1951, and others).) rice. 9 indicate that the reduction in the number of errors is especially significant for the elements located in the center of the row, which are known to be the most difficult to remember (see p. 225).

b) The role of time intervals between successive samples. If you change the intervals between successive samples, keeping the intervals between the elements of the series constant, then you can achieve even more greater efficiency distributed learning. In the study of Hovland (1938) already mentioned, different experimental conditions were used; as already mentioned, under one of these conditions, the interval between samples was 6 seconds, and under the other - 2 minutes. 6 sec. It was found that when the interval between syllables is 2 seconds, much less errors occur when the interval between trials is 2 minutes. 6 sec. than with an interval of 6 sec. (curves I and II in Fig. 9).

However, making a conclusion about the advantages of a distributed exercise over a concentrated one, it is necessary to make some clarifications. In essence, the relative effectiveness of learning is determined by the ratio between the intervals separating the samples, on the one hand, and the intervals between the elements of the material, on the other. Thus, in the same experiment, Hovland showed that with an interval between syllables equal to 4 seconds, there is practically no difference between concentrated and distributed learning (curves I" and II" Fig. 9).

B. The Problem of Optimal Distribution of Exercises

Based on what has just been general principles, we can now raise the question of the best distribution of periods of exercise and rest in order to achieve the greatest effectiveness of learning. This issue was studied in two categories of work: in one case, the periods of exercise remained constant, while the duration of rest varied systematically; in the other, the rest periods remained constant and the duration of the exercises varied.

a) The effect of changing rest periods. If you systematically vary the time intervals between exercises, leaving the duration of the latter unchanged, then you can find the optimal interval (its value sometimes varies within fairly wide limits), for which the number of exercises will be the smallest.

Travis (1937) studied the effect of intervals of 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 48 ​​hours, 72 hours. and 120 hours to complete motor exercises duration 5 min. The optimal interval was 20 minutes. However, the duration of this optimal interval varies depending on the nature of the task, and even for the same task, its value can vary widely. Pierron (1913) asked subjects to memorize a series of 18 meaningless syllables; memorization was carried out at intervals of 30 seconds, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 minutes, 24 and 48 hours. The exercise (at all intervals) continued until the first error-free repetition of a series of syllables. The following results were obtained.

As the author notes, "from an interval of half a minute to an interval of ten minutes, 20 times greater than the first, the number of presentations of material required for memorization is reduced by more than two-thirds." The optimal interval is starting from 10 minutes, however, intervals of 20 minutes. and 24 hours. also have advantages in terms of exercise efficiency.

Lordge (1930) compared the change in learning rate for different tasks (mirror image drawing, mirror image reading, and coding) when 20 presentations of material followed either immediately one after another or at intervals of 1 min. or 24 hours. For any interval duration, distributed learning has clear advantages over concentrated learning. The difference between the results of learning, carried out at intervals of 1 min. and 24 hours, slightly (see Fig. 10).

b) The effect of changing exercise duration. What should be the duration of the exercises with a constant time interval between exercises in order to achieve maximum learning productivity? In Jost's (1897) study, subjects memorized strings of nonsense syllables under various experimental conditions:

condition A: the series is memorized for 3 days, 8 repetitions per day; memorization check is made on the 4th day;

condition B: the series is memorized for 6 days, 4 repetitions per day; memorization is checked on the 7th day;

condition B: the series is memorized for 12 days, 2 repetitions per day; memorization test is performed on the 13th day.

Comparison of the number of correctly reproduced syllables showed that the best retention is observed with the shortest periods of exercise (2 repetitions per day) and that memorization efficiency decreases when the number of material presentations for a certain period of work increases.

The results obtained by other authors confirm the existence of an optimal exercise period, but the duration of this period varies greatly depending on the nature and complexity of the task and the individual characteristics of the subjects. This also applies to the field of psychomotor learning. Kimble and Bilodeau (1949) compared learning curves for performing a motor task under two conditions: in one case, 10-second exercise periods were separated by intervals of 10 or 30 seconds; in the other, the exercise lasted 30 seconds; the intervals between exercises remained the same. Analysis of curves in fig. 11 shows that the best results are obtained when the work period is 10 seconds, regardless of the length of the intervals between exercises. It can also be seen that under the conditions of this experiment, with the same duration of the period of work, distributed learning gives better results.

D. Distribution of exercises and relative difficulty of the task

We will see below that the optimal length of exercise and rest periods varies greatly depending on the nature of the task. If the task remains the same, and its difficulty is changed by gradually increasing its volume, then it turns out that the more difficult the task becomes, the more the advantages of distributed exercise affect learning. This relationship was verified by Lyon (1914) and Howland (1940). Hovland compared the effectiveness of distributed exercise - with a 2-minute interval between trials - and concentrated - with a 6-second interval. Rows of 9, 12 and 15 meaningless syllables were memorized. Analysis of the results presented in table. XII, shows that as the number of memorized elements increases steadily (in absolute and relative value) the saving of the exercise due to distributed learning also increases.

It also follows that the advantages of distributed over concentrated learning, which have been widely confirmed in numerous studies, are actually only relative, because they become less pronounced as the task becomes easier and easier. Underwood (1951; with Richardson, 1955 and 1958; and Schultz, 1959) has collected evidence that the distribution of exercises favors the acquisition of material whose elements have a high degree of similarity and, therefore, are difficult to remember due to the many interferences caused by this similarity. However, when the material being learned has little similarity (with the same number of memorized elements), then there are almost no differences between distributed and concentrated exercises.

Finally, one must take into account how familiar it is for the subject to perform this task. One of Yost's (1897) subjects was able to memorize a series of 12 nonsense syllables in 18.5 (on average) repetitions of 4 presentations per day; with 2 presentations a day, he needed 17.9 repetitions, but he achieved the same results with 7-9 presentations, but only on condition that there was no break in the exercise.

Jost's conclusions remain valid in the light of recent research: when the material is such that it can be memorized with a relatively small number of repetitions, it is preferable to use the method of concentrated learning; if, on the contrary, a significant number of repetitions is necessary to master the material, then, undoubtedly, the method of distributed learning will be the most economical.

E. Effect of Exercise Distribution on Delayed Recall

Yost, in his study, which we have already discussed (see p. 245), showed that for the same number of repetitions, retention (measured by the method of repeated learning) after 24 hours is better with distributed learning than with concentrated learning. With a more rigorous approach to this problem, it becomes necessary to check what will be the relative effectiveness of delayed retention (for any kind of exercise distribution) if the subjects achieve the same learning criterion (for example, the same number of correct answers). The answer to this question is given by 2 categories of work, a) The influence of time intervals between exercise periods. In a study by Cain and Willie (1939), 6 groups of pre-trained subjects learned a series of 12 nonsense syllables using the anticipation method. Each group was studied under only one of the six conditions provided for in the experimental plan. The latter included: 2 exercise conditions (concentrated learning: only one exercise session; learning criterion: 12 correct anticipations; distributed learning: 3 exercise sessions separated by 24-hour intervals; learning criterion: 6 correct anticipations on the first day, 9 on the second and 12 - in the third) and 3 time intervals between the end of learning and the test of memorization (24 hours, 3 days, 7 days). An analysis of the results shows that the number of exercises required to achieve the learning criterion - 12 correct anticipations - is almost the same for both distributed and concentrated learning (on average 35.6 trials for distributed exercise and 33.5 for concentrated). At the first attempt of repeated memorization, the reproduction index (the number of correctly anticipated answers) was determined for each subject. On fig. 12 shows average playback dynamics data. The following trend is clearly visible: the material is retained in memory longer when it was memorized during not one, but several sessions.

b) Influence of time intervals between individual samples. If we do not separate the stages (blocs) of a concentrated exercise by long intervals, but introduce periods of short rest between separate successive trials, then the results obtained will confirm the conclusions arising from the study of Cain and Willey, but with one very significant caveat: retention with distributed learning is much better, than with a concentrated one, but only in those cases where, with the complication of the task, the probability of interference increases. Conversely, when there is little chance of interference, concentrated learning leads to just as effective - and sometimes even more complete - memorization as distributed learning.

In a study by Underwood and Richardson (1955), 168 subjects first learned a series of 6 trigrams of consonants. 84 subjects memorized these trigrams with a concentrated exercise, 84 others - with a distributed exercise. 24 hours after the end of memorization, there was no significant difference between the two groups of subjects in the number of reproduced trigrams, allowing us to conclude that distributed learning had a positive effect on the effectiveness of delayed recall.

Then all subjects memorized 5 new rows of letters under conditions of concentrated learning. In this case, the goal was to facilitate the occurrence of proactive interference when memorizing the last, critical, series (7th series). Half of the subjects memorized this seventh row with a distributed exercise (these subjects, in turn, were divided into 3 subgroups, depending on the duration of the intervals between presentations: 1 min., 2 min. and 3 min.). The rest memorized this series in a situation of concentrated exercise. The curve in fig. 13 shows the change in the reproduction of the 7th row depending on the length of the intervals between samples. It can be concluded that 24 hours after the end of the exercises, reproduction with distributed learning is better than with concentrated learning. This advantage is all the more pronounced, the longer the intervals between presentations. The distribution of exercises improves, therefore, long-term preservation in the case when the resulting interference can disrupt the consolidation of the material in memory (7th row). However, this positive effect does not occur if the possibility of such interference is unlikely ( The findings of this work allow us to understand the seemingly contradictory results of some previous studies. See the works of Howland (1940) for more efficient reproduction with distributed learning, and on the other hand, the work of Underwood (1952a, 1952b, 1953) which does not confirm the results of Howland).

E. Hypotheses explaining the effects of exercise distribution

The main hypotheses aimed at explaining the influence of the distribution of exercises on memorization and retention should be divided into two groups: one - the mental review hypotheses, Müller's and Pilzeker's perseveration hypotheses - proceed from the assumption that during the intervals between trials there are processes of reactivation or consolidation of mnemonic responses; others - the hypotheses of fatigue, Hull's reactive inhibition, McGech's differentiated forgetting - postulate that during these intervals it becomes possible to eliminate the process of inhibition, which reduces the likelihood of recalling mnemonic responses.

The hypothesis that the advantages of distributed learning over concentrated learning can be explained by the fact that during periods of rest between exercises the subject performs a mental review of the task is based on phenomena that are sometimes observed in human learning. However, it is difficult to explain the beneficial effects of exercise distribution in animal learning with this hypothesis.

The hypothesis of Müller and Pilzeker (1900) is more general and therefore more acceptable than the previous one. It proceeds from the fact that the biophysiological processes caused by the exercise continue to persist for some time after the end of memorization; this perseveration contributes to the consolidation of mnemonic traces, provided, of course, that no other activity interferes with this. It follows that the consolidation of the response learned during this trial depends on the duration of the rest interval. With distributed learning, this interval is greater than with concentrated learning, so the phenomenon of consolidation in the first case reaches its maximum efficiency, while in the second it is prevented by too rapid alternation of trials. For reasons which we will set out when discussing this hypothesis in connection with theories of forgetting (see p. 323), one can hardly ignore the possibility of such a phenomenon occurring. However, the explanatory value of this hypothesis remains limited: thus, with the help of this hypothesis - at the present stage of its development - it is not possible to explain the results of those experiments in which concentrated learning is characterized by the same level of efficiency as distributed learning.

The fatigue hypothesis suggests that distributed learning is faster than concentrated learning because rest intervals eliminate task-induced fatigue. But besides the fact that the concept of fatigue remains very vague (what is the nature of this fatigue, how to identify it?), it also does not allow us to understand why there is an improvement in performance with the introduction of rest intervals already at the first stage of the exercise, when there is no evidence of any fatigue yet. may be out of the question. Hull's (1943) reactive braking hypothesis is no more satisfactory in this respect ( Hull (1943) suggests that the body's responses to a learning situation cause fatigue, the magnitude of which depends on the duration of the exercise. This phenomenon, which he calls reactive inhibition (IR), can apparently reduce and even temporarily neutralize the potential that determines the occurrence of a response. During rest intervals, reactive braking weakens. This hypothesis allows us to understand some of the phenomena of distributed learning and reminiscence. However, not all facts can be explained by this hypothesis.).

Finally, McGech's differentiated forgetting hypothesis (McGech and Irion, 1952) suggests that, in any learning, the subject associates with the task not only correct answers, but also incorrect ones. These wrong answers - whether they are sourced from the material itself or are the result of interventions in the course of the exercise of previously acquired answers - come into conflict with the correct answers, make them difficult to digest and interfere with them at the time of reproduction ( McGech's differentiated forgetting hypothesis is part of her general theory of interference, which we will talk about in connection with forgetting (p. 319)). However, the links to the task of these wrong answers are much less stable than the links of correct answers ( McGech does not say specifically why these ties should be considered weaker. But this can be understood if we assume that, unlike correct answers, incorrect answers are not reinforced during learning.), so when the exercise stops, they are forgotten faster than the correct answers. Consequently, the situation of distributed learning contributes to forgetting wrong answers, and this explains the advantages of a distributed exercise over a concentrated one.

This hypothesis is consistent with many facts established experimentally. It suggests that the benefits of exercise distribution will be greater the greater the difficulty of the task and the associated probability of interference (for example, with an increase in the number of memorized elements or with a strong similarity of them to each other). This hypothesis allows us to understand that the benefits of distributed learning are only relative: concentrated learning can be just as effective if the likelihood of interference is negligible. But the main postulate on which this concept is based - the relative weakness of incorrect associations - could not be experimentally confirmed ( So, if we take as operational criteria for the weakness of associations the magnitude of the latent period of responses or the speed of their disappearance, then "distant" associations (that is, associations called incorrect when you need to remember a series of syllables or words in a certain order; see p. 220) should have a longer latent period and be forgotten faster than anterograde associations between neighboring elements (correct associations). The work of McGech (1936) and Wilson (1943), which aimed to test this logical consequence of the differential forgetting hypothesis, did not confirm it. Apparently, on the contrary, at the beginning of learning, the tendency to give incorrect answers prevails. Having accepted this assumption, supported by some experimental data, Underwood (1961) proposed a new version of this theory based on the phenomenon of response competition. In accordance with this concept, distributed learning increases the likelihood of interference during the exercise, and concentrated learning reduces this probability; and thus distributed learning, in contrast to concentrated learning, contributes to the differentiation of correct and incorrect answers and the inhibition of the latter. Currently available experimental data are still insufficient to confirm such a hypothesis.).

We can draw the following conclusion. At present, it is not possible to explain the totality of exercise-induced effects within a single hypothesis. However, this does not mean that the hypotheses we have considered are a priori incompatible with each other. We must agree that both the reactivation of responses through a mental review, and their consolidation, due to the perseveration of the underlying biophysiological processes, the elimination of inhibition that occurs during fatigue, and the phenomena of response competition play a certain role - the significance of each of these factors is different in each specific case. - in the occurrence of effects determined by the modalities of learning. The conclusion, of course, is eclectic, but it gives the right to exist to the most diverse theories.

The law of the location of repetitions remains valid only when it comes to a continuous series of successive repetitions. But if they stop for a certain time, and then resume again, then the situation is somewhat different. Indeed, it can be assumed that in this case, instead of one series of repetitions, there are several and, therefore, the location of each repetition and its mnemonic meaning should change accordingly. Obviously, in this case, the time interval between repetitions is of decisive importance - with a small interval, with less reason, we can talk about the termination of the series than with a longer one. One way or another, in any case, you should at least find out whether the duration of the time interval between repetitions has any mnemonic value.

The answer to this question is given by the well-known Jost's law (1897): memorization of visual material(syllables, words, numbers) less time is required when the time interval between repetitions is longer.

This means that if, for example, to memorize a poem, you need to read it 20 times in a row, it will take us much less time if we learn it, say, for four days - then we will need not five repetitions a day, but much less . Pierron received the following data: 20 digits were sufficient for memorization: with an interval of 1.5 minutes - 11 repetitions, with a 2-minute interval - 7.5 repetitions, with a 10-minute interval - 5 repetitions, and with an interval of 24 minutes or more up to 24 hours - 4.5 repetitions.

The action of Yost's law is even more clearly expressed when it comes to the development of motor skills (Snod).

But is it possible to speak about the absolute force of this law? Can we say that the longer the interval, the better result memorization? Of course, such an assumption would be wrong. It is quite obvious that too long an interval contributes not to memorization, but to forgetting, because it is clear that if we read a poem twice today, and then never re-read it for a year, in the end nothing will remain of it in our memory.

Therefore, it can be assumed that Jost's law operates within certain limits, that is, there must be an interval of some duration, which is the most favorable condition for the memorization process - the optimal interval that allows you to get best result compared to both shorter and longer intervals. According to existing studies, such an interval, as can be seen from the above data, is between 10 minutes and 24 hours.

But if this is the case, then the final formulation of Jost's law might look like this: the minimum number of repetitions for memorizing any material depends on the optimal length of the time interval between these repetitions.

There are two main ways of learning: concentrated and distributed. Concentrated learning – a method of memorization in which the material is memorized in one step, and repetitions follow one after the other.Distributed learning – rational way of learning. in which repetitions are separated by time intervals. Jost rule: from two associations of the same strength (i.e., giving an equal number of guesses), but different ages, the new repetition better updates the older association. General conclusion: if the material is such that it can be memorized with a small number of repetitions, then the method of concentrated memorization should be used; if a large number of repetitions is needed, then the method of distributed learning is more economical.

17. The influence of the nature (similarities, differences, meaningfulness) of the material on memorization. Von Restorf effect.

Important role plays the degree of similarity or difference between the elements of the memorized material. Similar elements are those that have common features, the similarity is higher, the more such features. For example, two syllables RON and HON (common letters), two squares of different sizes (according to the shape), two concepts “wardrobe” and “table” (belonging to the general category “furniture”) are similar. Experimental studies of the effect of material similarity have shown that the number of trials required to achieve the same learning criterion increases with increasing similarity between material items 2

The German psychologist A. von Restorff studied the memorization of a series in the case when the elements of the material are heterogeneous, for example, numbers alternate in various proportions with syllables and graphic symbols. She used three types of rows, each presented at 1 day intervals and played back 10 minutes after memorization: Based on the results, the following was formulated general rule, named von Restorf effect: heterogeneous elements included in a series with a noticeable predominance of homogeneous elements are better preserved than homogeneous elements, regardless of the nature of the material.

19. Phenomena of retroactive interference and reminiscence.

Retroactive interference is the deterioration in the retention of material caused by the learning of other material that occurs between learning and determining its retention.

Retroactive interference is the result of the interaction of many variables. Consider: Similarities between the two tasks, Degree of learning, Amount of material

Experimental studies.

1. Retroactive interference was discovered by Müller and Pilzeker. The subjects of the experimental group (EG) memorized material A → memorized material B → reproduced material A. The subjects of the control group (CG) did the same, only

without material B. Conclusion: the formula of absolute retroactive interference (ARI) ARI = CG - EG and the formula of relative retroactive interference (RRI) CG - EG / CG

20. Memory changes in Korsakov's syndrome.

The most gross forms of amnesia were first described by the Russian scientist S.S. Korsakov and received the name korsakov's syndrome. This memory disorder is observed with multiple neuritis, i.e. simultaneous inflammation and degeneration of many nerve fibers, the cause of which is often alcohol abuse. Patients remember well what happened to them before the illness, but they forget everything that happened to them most recently. If you interrupt the story of such a patient, then he immediately forgets what he was talking about, and may begin to repeat everything that has already been said. Although the horizons of such patients are narrowed, their reasoning is correct and logical, although the direction of the train of thought is often subject to external influences. This syndrome is a typical case of retrograde amnesia, since memory is limited to what was before the onset of the disease, although some memory of the onset of the disease may remain. Korsakov noticed that the disease affects the memory unevenly, which becomes especially noticeable in the process of recovery of such patients - some substructures are restored faster than others.

Jost's law: of two associations of the same strength, of which one is older than the other, with subsequent repetition it will be better updated old association.

Yost (1897) thought about what is more effective for memorization: to repeat the exercise continuously until the learning criterion is reached, or to distribute the exercises over time.

Method: two subjects repeated a series of nonsense words 30 times in a row under two different conditions:

1) all 30 repetitions were carried out on one day, the next day, repeated memorization was carried out, which continued until the first error-free reproduction;

2) all 30 repetitions were distributed over 3 consecutive days, 10 repetitions per day; on the 4th day - re-learning.

Result: The number of trials needed for relearning is somewhat greater when all 30 repetitions fall on the same day. Why? Because, by repeating the rows of syllables, the subject establishes associations between various elements of the material; at distributed learning actualizes "old" associations, with concentrated learning - the newest ("prescription" of associations is the greater, the more time has passed from exercise to reproduction).

36. Studies of thinking in the Würzburg school.

The concept of the Würzburg school (1901-1910-11). Kulpe (student of Wundt, Buhler, Ah, Marbe, Watt, Messer, Mayer, etc.). For the first time subjecting thinking to experimental research, the V. school introduced the method of presenting problems into psychology and transformed introspection into a "method of systematic experimental self-observation" (Ax). High requirements for self-observation. It consists in describing the entire process of mental activity (either after its completion or in the process itself, when a person was interrupted and asked to describe the course of his reasoning).

Thinking as a solution to problems, as an internal action. The idea of ​​the intentionality of consciousness is expressed by the concept of a "determining tendency" that is not subject to the laws of associations. Determining trend- the mental state of a person, which determines the direction, selectivity of thinking, depending on the task. In experiments, this determining tendency is determined by the task set (a question and the search for an answer). The very concept of “task” and the “representation of the goal” associated with it are introduced. Introduction of the concept of “attitudes” as a characteristic of the state of the subject who accepted the task. Thus, the qualitative originality of thinking, irreducibility to the laws of associations (conditionality by purpose) is indicated.

Thinking as an independent mental process. Activity, purposefulness, ugly nature of thinking. Thinking is treated as an independent process, a special activity. It has an unobtrusive, non-figurative character. Thinking is awareness of relationships, independent of figurative representations. Imageless thinking- thinking, free from sensory elements (percepts and ideas). By systematically introspecting the processes of understanding words, sentences, and passages of text, they found that understanding the meaning of verbal material occurs without the appearance of any images in the mind.

Purposefulness and activity. The concept of V. school refers (along with the theory of Seltz) to the teleological approach. Teleological approach: the main characteristic of thinking is its purposefulness, activity. The question is raised about the specifics of thinking. Emphasis on the actualization of past experience as the basis for solving the problem. Experimental studies are based on the material of reproductive tasks. The main features of this approach are: 1) the internal orientation of the subject to achieve the goal (for example, solving a problem), 2) in thinking, a search is made for the essential (relationship) as opposed to the visually perceived, 3) thought. as an act of discretion of the relations between the elements of the task.

The question of the psychological structure of the task. This is what Zelts did. The structure of the action to solve the problem:

1 S – situation, task condition

2 P - goal, requirement

3 m - a means to an end

"Theory of complexes". For right decision task, all its elements should act as a single complex for the subject.

1 Specific reaction- an objectively necessary answer, adequate to the goal.

2 Operation- a way to highlight such a response.

3 Method- an operation recognized and used by the subject as a means of solving a problem.

Otto Selz, a student of Külpe, studied pilot study productive thinking. Describe the process of thinking. At the beginning, a problematic situation arises as a gap between what is available and what is sought, which is reflected in the anticipatory scheme. The decision process is directed by her. Seltz emphasizes the integrity of thinking. That. The Würzburg school prepared the emergence of Gestalt psychology.

Anticipation of the result and completion of the complex (according to Selz)

Jost's law (English Jost "s law)- an empirical pattern, discovered in 1895, when studying the memorization of meaningless verbal material in German. psychologist Adolf Jost.

According to the JOST Law, with an equal probability of reproduction, older information: is forgotten more slowly and requires fewer repetitions when relearning. The operation of Yost's Law is explained by the differences between short-term and long-term memory. Cm . Ebbinghaus G .

Addendum : The following follow from the JOST Law, useful rules for students: the sooner you start preparing for the exam, the better; You need to learn more important stuff first. One can hope that the regularity revealed on meaningless material is also valid for a meaningful text (the opposite is less likely). Dr. variants of the name of the law that can be found in Russian-language literature: "Jost's law", "Jost's law". (B. M.)

Psychological dictionary. A.V. Petrovsky M.G. Yaroshevsky

Dictionary of psychiatric terms. V.M. Bleikher, I.V. Crook

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

Neurology. Full dictionary. Nikiforov A.S.

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

Oxford Dictionary of Psychology

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

subject area of ​​the term

JOST'S LAW - an empirical pattern discovered in 1895. A. Yost, according to which, with an equal probability of reproducing meaningless information from memory, older information is forgotten more slowly and requires fewer repetitions when finishing learning. This pattern is based on the mechanism of transferring information from short-term memory to long-term memory. (S.Yu. Golovin)