What Is the Mechanism Underlying the Interleaving Effect in Category Induction: An Eye-Tracking and Behavioral Study

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2022 Jan 3

PMID 34975661

Citations 1

Authors

Yabo Ge

Fengying Li

Xinyu Li

Weijian Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Interleaved practice (i.e., exemplars from different categories are intermixed within blocks) has been shown to enhance induction performance compared to blocked practice (i.e., exemplars from the same category are presented sequentially). The main aim of the present study was to examine explanations of why interleaved practice produces this benefit in category induction (known as the interleaving effect). We also evaluated two hypotheses, the attention attenuation hypothesis and the discriminative-contrast hypothesis, by collecting data on participants' fixation on exemplars, provided by eye-tracking data, and manipulating the degree of discriminative-contrast. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were instructed to learn the style of 12 new artists in blocked and interleaved practice in fixed-paced and self-paced learning conditions, respectively. We examined fixation durations for six positions (temporal sequence of exemplars presented in each block) using eye-tracking. The results of the two experiments, based on eye-tracking data, suggested that attention attenuation may not be the primary mechanism underlying the interleaving effect in category induction. In Experiment 3, we manipulated the degree of discriminative-contrast to examine the impact on the interleaving effect in category induction. The results showed that the main effect of the degree of discriminative-contrast was significant, and performance in the high-contrast condition was significantly better than those in the medium-contrast and low-contrast conditions. Thus, the current results support the discriminative-contrast hypothesis rather than the attention attenuation hypothesis.

Citing Articles

The spacing effect in remote information-integration category learning.

Cruz A, Minda J Mem Cognit. 2024; 52(7):1653-1672.

PMID: 38684557 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01569-w.

References

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

Wagenmakers E, Lodewyckx T, Kuriyal H, Grasman R . Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method. Cogn Psychol. 2010; 60(3):158-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.12.001. View

Brunmair M, Richter T . Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychol Bull. 2019; 145(11):1029-1052. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000209. View

Mathy F, Feldman J . The Influence of Presentation Order on Category Transfer. Exp Psychol. 2016; 63(1):59-69. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000312. View

Ashby F, OBrien J . Category learning and multiple memory systems. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9(2):83-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.003. View

Rehder B, Hoffman A . Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cogn Psychol. 2005; 51(1):1-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.11.001. View

Vlach H, Sandhofer C, Kornell N . The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition. 2008; 109(1):163-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.013. View

Kornell N, Castel A, Eich T, Bjork R . Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2010; 25(2):498-503. DOI: 10.1037/a0017807. View

Wahlheim C, Dunlosky J, Jacoby L . Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Mem Cognit. 2011; 39(5):750-63. PMC: 3085105. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y. View

10.

Carvalho P, Goldstone R . Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Mem Cognit. 2013; 42(3):481-95. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0371-0. View

11.

Markman A, Ross B . Category use and category learning. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129(4):592-613. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.592. View

12.

Zulkiply N, Burt J . The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Mem Cognit. 2012; 41(1):16-27. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9. View

13.

Ariel R, Dunlosky J, Toppino T . Contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding to decisions to mass or space study. Exp Psychol. 2013; 61(2):110-7. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000230. View

14.

Foster N, Mueller M, Was C, Rawson K, Dunlosky J . Why does interleaving improve math learning? The contributions of discriminative contrast and distributed practice. Mem Cognit. 2019; 47(6):1088-1101. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-00918-4. View

15.

Benjamin A, Tullis J . What makes distributed practice effective?. Cogn Psychol. 2010; 61(3):228-47. PMC: 2930147. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004. View

16.

Cepeda N, Coburn N, Rohrer D, Wixted J, Mozer M, Pashler H . Optimizing distributed practice: theoretical analysis and practical implications. Exp Psychol. 2009; 56(4):236-46. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236. View

17.

Dienes Z . Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front Psychol. 2014; 5:781. PMC: 4114196. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781. View

18.

Cepeda N, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted J, Rohrer D . Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychol Bull. 2006; 132(3):354-80. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354. View

19.

Carvalho P, Goldstone R . The sequence of study changes what information is attended to, encoded, and remembered during category learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017; 43(11):1699-1719. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000406. View

20.

Metcalfe J, Xu J . People mind wander more during massed than spaced inductive learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015; 42(6):978-984. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000216. View