Retro-active inhibition does not explain part learners' failure, since unit I retained almost perfect control¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Groups taught all four motor units without connecting trials displayed almost perfect control over unit I when retrained, with identical retention shown for the remaining units. → Pechstein 1917

Evidence¶

Pechstein 1917¶

Pechstein, L. A. (1917). Alleged Elements of Waste in Learning a Motor Problem by the "Part" Method. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071944

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Groups were taught all the motor units as for part learning but given no connecting trials, then retrained on unit I; the relearning expenditure measured the retro-active effect of learning units II, III, and IV. The groups "displayed almost perfect control over unit I."

"But the groups displayed almost perfect control over unit I. When retrained upon the remaining units, the identical retention of skill was shown."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The motor habit for a maze section shows practically no disintegration over the intervals between part-learning trials — related
• Maze units retain near-complete control when run in changed combinations, so contiguity of functioning does not cause the waste — related