The Hebb repetition effect as a laboratory analogue of language acquisition: Learning three lists at no cost.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hebb repetition effect (i.e., the enhanced recall performance for a sequence of items that is repeated during a serial recall experiment) is considered an experimental analogue to language learning. However, although language learning occurs in a context in which multiple verbal sequences are repeated concurrently, the effect of increasing the number of repeated sequences in the Hebb repetition paradigm has received little attention, and previous studies have used tasks that depart considerably from the natural language learning experience. In the present study, we manipulated the number of repeated sequences in a Hebb repetition paradigm that is a close experimental analogue of language learning. Participants were asked to orally recall sequences of 7 nonsense syllables that were aurally presented. The paradigm included 1 or 3 sequences that were repeated every 4th trial. The results showed that participants could learn 3 sequences simultaneously and they could do so as easily as they would learn a single sequence. The results provide additional evidence to models relating the Hebb repetition effect to word-form learning. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".