Practice gains are greater for nonsense material (average final gain 28%) than for sense-material (average final gain 10%).¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1910 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Average final gain with nonsense material was 28% versus 10% with sense-material, attributed to repetition to faultless reproduction, repeated elements, and more opportunities for counting, naming and orderly methods. → Foster 1910

Evidence¶

Foster 1910¶

Foster, W. S. (1910). The Effect of Practice upon Visualizing and upon the Reproduction of Visual Impressions. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075685

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Three-observer practice study comparing material classes. The results section reports the average final nonsense gain of 28% against a sense gain of 10%, and gives a threefold explanation including repeated elements and verbal tricks.

"gains wiui sense-material are relatively small; with nonsense material, relatively great. The average final nonsense gain is 28%; the average final sense gain, 10%."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Practice increases observers' ability to reproduce briefly exposed visual material, with final-over-initial gains ranging from 6% to 44% (average 22%). — related
• Systematic practise gives little warrant for markedly improving adults' quick visual perception; the slight poetry gain is attributed to familiarity with the poem — related
• Delayed-recall errors greatly exceeded immediate-recall errors, more so under the orderly procedure (4.33 times) than the random procedure (2.6 times) — related
• In immediate recall, an orderly (fixed spatial-temporal) procedure for spelling word groups produced fewer errors than a random procedure, by 9.4% — related
• Practice effects in visual reproduction are specific: they transfer to new conditions only in proportion to identical ability-conditioning factors. — related