Journal of Experimental Psychology

1969, Vol. 79, No. 1, 18-21

MONITORING EYE MOVEMENTS DURING THE LEARNING

OF LOW-HIGH AND HIGH-LOW MEANINGFULNESS
PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LISTSx
P. D. McCORMACK AND T. E. MOORE
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Eye movements of 5s were monitored as they attempted to learn an H-L or

an L-H m' PA list. An earlier study revealed that more sustained attention
is directed to low-m' than to high-m' materials. Predictions arising from
this finding were compared with those stemming from the 2-stage con-
ceptualization. The data of this study gave more support for the latter
position.

A series of verbal learning investigations Hannah, 1967), one group of Ss (Group

(e.g., McCormack & Haltrecht, 1966) in H) learned a PA list comprised of high-m'
which eye movements were photographed PA syllables while a second group (Group
has provided support for the position that L) was required to learn a list made up of
the learning of paired-associate (PA) lists low-m' items. Eye movements were photo-
is a two-stage process (Underwood, Run- graphed during the first eight trials with 5"s
quist, & Schulz, 1959) involving response being interrupted for approximately 1 min.
consolidation and S-R hookup. These between Trials 4 and 5 to enable film
studies have used PA materials of middle changeover. The two-stage notion would
meaningfulness (m') (Noble, 1961) and the lead to the prediction that the fixation func-
study-test method. As learning progressed, tions of Group L would cross over later in
response viewing time decreased while time time than those of Group H, the low-m'
spent viewing the stimulus increased. These responses in the former case requiring a
stimulus and response functions have crossed longer period of consolidation. This was not
over during early learning trials resulting the case since both groups exhibited the
in a disproportionate amount of stimulus usual functions, with response viewing pre-
viewing on later trials. Presumably, once dominating only on very early trials. Nor
response consolidation has taken place, did the two groups differ with respect to
stimulus viewing predominates despite the their eye movement patterns, the usual S-R
fact that the study-test method demands that to S-R-S viewing being obtained. There
the stimulus receive double exposure. The was some indication, however, that Group L
Ss also have consistently evidenced a pattern ,9s experienced difficulty with consolidation
of looking first to the stimulus and then to of the low-m' responses. This appeared in
the response during early learning trials, but the form of a regression to predominant re-
later in learning have shown a pattern of sponse viewing on Trial 5 following the film
S-R-S viewing. Such phenomena have been change. This renewed attention to the re-
demonstrated to be stable from day to day sponses appeared only in the data of Group
(McCormack, Haltrecht, & Hannah, 1967) L and was consistent with the overall in-
and to be absent in nonlearning situations feriority in the learning of those Ss as com-
(McCormack, Haltrecht, & Hannah, 1966). pared to that of Group H.
In another investigation in which eye A somewhat unexpected outcome of this
movements were monitored (McCormack & study was that the total fixation time of
J-This research was supported by a grant-in-aid Group L 5"s exceeded that of Group H,
from the Associate Committee on Experimental which could not be accounted for by less
Psychology of the National Research Council of attention over trials on the part of the latter
Canada (Grant APA-78). The authors are in-
debted to Wayne Fingus, Ted Hannah, and Kathy 5"s, a phenomenon occasionally seen in other
Haycock for data collection. experiments. This finding of more sus-
18
 EYE MOVEMENTS AND THE TWO-STAGE MODEL
tained attention to low-m' materials leads to
the prediction that response viewing will
predominate during the learning of a list
comprised of high-m' stimuli and low-m'
responses (List H-L) and that stimulus
viewing will prevail on a list with low-m'
stimuli and high-m' responses (List L-H).
On the other hand, the two-stage conceptual-
ization would lead to the expectation that
response viewing would exceed stimulus
viewing during the early learning trials of
List L-H and that it would be further ex-
tended in time during the learning of an
H-L list. The present experiment was per-
formed with the purpose of evaluating these
alternatives.
METHOD
Subjects and materials.The 5s were 21 male
and 15 female students from introductory psychol-
ogy courses who were assigned at random to the
two groups, Group H-L and Group L-H, with the
restriction that there be 10 males and 8 females in
the former group and 11 males and 7 females in the
latter. Each list was made up of seven pairs of
CVCs, the L items having m' values ranging from
1.23 to 1.55 while the m' values of the H items
ranged from 2.33 to 2.48. The H-L list was as
follows: YAN keb, MOK tuh, FIR sew, FUT daq,
SOG fiy, HEV cug, CAW rwv. These pairs were rer
versed to form the L-H list.
Apparatus and procedure.The lists were pro-
jected by means of a timer-controlled Carousel
unit to a white-surfaced screen 1.4 m. from S
and1 2.4 m. from the projector. Eye movements
were recorded by means of a head-mounted eye-
marker camera (Mackworth & Thomas, 1962)
consisting of a 2 X 8 mm. motion-picture unit film-
ing at a speed of IS frames per second and a
periscope that reflects a spot of light from the
cornea to the film. The film, when developed,
shows the PA slides and, superimposed on each, a
bright circular spot indicating the approximate
position of actual fixation. The data were analyzed
frame by frame by examining the S-R slides
through a film viewer and determining whether S
was fixating the stimulus or the response. This
method of analysis was highly dependable, the
between- and within-E reliability coefficients both
being .98.
The seven CVC pairs were presented consecu-
tively on any given trial. During this study phase,
S was instructed to examine the pairs in an
attempt to learn them. Following a 2-sec. inter-
val, the seven stimuli were exposed with S at-
tempting to recall the appropriate responses dur-
ing this test phase. Slides changed every 2 sec. with
a 1.4-sec. exposure of each. The intertrial interval
was 2 sec. and a 1-min. rest was introduced at the
19
end of every 4 trials to enable E to change film.
The lists were presented in each of four different
random orders in an attempt to minimize serial
learning and the session was terminated at the
completion of 16 trials. The fixation and eye move-
ment data were analyzed for the first 8 trials only.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Learning data.It may be predicted from
the two-stage conceptualization that L-H
items will be learned with greater facility
than H-L pairs, response consolidation in
the former case requiring relatively less time.
Two recent reviews (Goss & Nodine, 1965;
Underwood & Schulz, 1960) have indicated
that this is generally the case. The findings,
however, have been by no means unequivo-
cal. An examination of the correct response
data of the present investigation reveals
some support for this prediction, the L-H
group being superior to the H-L group over
the last 8 of the 16 trials. However, an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these
data failed to reveal any statistically depend-
able Trials X Groups interaction, the only
reliable effect being that for trials, F (15,
510) = 65.19, p < .001. One possible rea-
son that the analysis did not demonstrate
superior performance on the part of the L-H
group, apart from the equivocality of earlier
findings, stems from the relative brevity of
the two lists, a restriction imposed by the
nature of the apparatus. In order to have
four different serial orders of each list, and
at the same time provide continuous filming
over each four-trial segment, no more than
seven CVC pairs could be used.
Fixation and eye movement data.The
major fixation findings are summarized in
Fig. 1 where mean number of frames per
syllable pair is shown as a function of the
first eight trials for each group: the solid-
line curves depicting fixations of the stim-
ulus, while response fixations are represented
by broken-line functions. For any given
trial, total frames of stimulus and response
may be calculated by adding the ordinate
values for the open and closed circles. The
difference between this value and 21 (1.4 X
15) represents frames involving fixations of
the center portion of the display, blinking,
looking away, etc. The data of Group H-L,
20 P. D. McCORMACK AND T. E. MOORE
H-L
V..
FIG. 1. Mean number ot frames per syllable
pair as a function of the first eight trials for the
two groups of 5s.
which indicate a preponderance of response
viewing, are consistent with the earlier rind-
ing that low-m' materials evoke sustained
attention. This tendency to view the re-
sponse out of proportion to the stimulus
throughout most of the first half of the
learning task is also in line with what would
be expected on the basis of the two-stage
notion, since the consolidation of these
low-m' responses should be relatively diffi-
cult. The two-stage conceptualization also
is supported by the finding that the stimulus
and response functions of Group H-L con-
verge with trials, indicating a transition from
Stage 1 to Stage 2. The data of Group
L-H, on the other hand, are not totally con-
sistent with the prediction that low-m' ma-
terials will receive greatest attention since
the response is viewed out of proportion to
the stimulus during early learning trials, a
finding which would be predicted from the
two-stage notion provided that it is assumed
that Stage 1 precedes Stage 2 in time.
ANOVA of the fixation data shows these
effects to be statistically dependable.
ANOVA for the H-L group revealed a pre-
ponderance of response viewing in the form
of a reliable conditions (S vs. R) effect,
F (1, 255) = 46.51, p < .001, as well as a
convergence of the stimulus and response
functions over trials which was revealed
by a dependable Trials X Conditions inter-
action, F (7, 255) = 2.15, p < .05. ANOVA
of the L-H data indicated only a Trials X
Conditions interaction, F (7, 255) =2.24,
p < .05, which reveals the statistical depend-
ability of the transition from response to
stimulus viewing on the part of these ^"s.
These analyses were supplemented by data
of that trial for each 5" where the stimulus
was first viewed out of proportion to the
response. The mean of 4.78 for Group H-L
was found to be reliably larger than that of
2.72 for Group L-H, t (34) = 3.61, p <
.001; thus, the functions converged for both
groups, the crossover point occurring earlier
for Group L-H.
In agreement with earlier studies where
response consolidation was expected to be
extended (e.g., McCormack, Hannah, Brad-
ley, & Moore, 1967) was the increased view-
ing of the response by 14 of the 18 5"s of
Group H-L from Trials 4 to 5 where a
1-min. interval was introduced to enable E
to change film. The binomial probability of
14 or more ,9s exhibiting this phenomenon
is .0154. Thus, response consolidation ap-
pears to be incomplete at the time of the
first film change for Ss of the H-L group,
a finding which is also in line with the two-
stage notion. The eye movement data also
were subjected to ANOVA with one move-
ment being recorded for S-R viewing, two
movements for an S-R-S pattern, etc. Ear-
lier studies have shown a transition from
S-R to S-R-S viewing as learning pro-
gresses, a phenomenon interpreted as sup-
porting the two-stage concept. This also
was the case in the present investigation,
with a reliable trials effect revealing that
the slope of the function relating eye move-
ments to trials was dependable greater than
zero, F (7, 238) = 4.11, p < .001. Although
 EYE MOVEMENTS AND THE TWO-STAGE MODEL
the function for Group H-L lagged behind
that for Group L-H for the four trials, this
was not demonstrated to be statistically de-
pendable since the F ratio for Trials X
Groups did not reliably exceed its expected
value of unity under the null hypothesis.
Conclusion.The data of the present in-
vestigation are consistent with the two-stage
notion but are not in agreement, particularly
those of Group L-H, with what would be
expected from the findings of the earlier
study where 5s were observed to attend
more to low-m' materials. The early cross-
over of the fixation functions for Group L
of the earlier investigation, however, does
not support the two-stage conceptualization
since these responses would be expected to
be relatively difficult to consolidate and so
should lead to more sustained attention dur-
ing the consolidation phase. On the other
hand, the increased viewing of the response
following the film change on the part of
Group L 5s, a phenomenon observed for
Group H-L in the present study, is in line
with the two-stage notion. In order to ac-
count for all of the data gathered so far,
it may become necessary to invoke a multi-
stage model such as that proposed by Mc-
Guire (1961) or by Underwood, Ekstrand,
and Keppel (1965). Such a model might
emphasize certain aspects over others where
pairs are homogeneous with respect to m',
as in the earlier study, and alter its emphasis
for situations where pairs are heterogeneous
with respect to m', as in the present investi-
gation.
REFERENCES
Goss, A. E., & NODINE, C. F. Paired-associates
learning. New York: Academic Press, 196S.
21
MACKWORTH, N. H., & THOMAS, E. L. Head-
mounted eye-marker camera. Journal of the
Optical Society of America, 1962, 52, 713-716.
McCoRMACK, P. D., & HALTRECHT, E. J. Moni-
toring eye movements under two conditions of
presentation of paired-associate materials.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 154-
159.
MCCORMACK, P. D., HALTRECHT, E. J., & HANNAH,
T. E. Monitoring eye movements in nonlearn-
ing situations. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6,
371-372.
McCoRMACK, P. D., HALTRECHT, E. J., & HANNAH,
T. E. Monitoring eye movements during the
learning of successive paired-associate lists.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1967, 6, 950-953.
MCCORMACK, P. D., & HANNAH, T. E. Monitor-
ing eye movements during the learning of high
and low meaningfulness paired-associate lists.
Psychonomic Science, 1967, 8, 443-444.
MCCORMACK, P. D., HANNAH, T. E., BRADLEY,
W. J., & MOORE, T. E, Monitoring eye move-
ments under conditions of high and low intralist
response (meaningful) similarity. Psychonomic
Science, 1967, 8, 517-518.
McGuiRE, W. J. A multiprocess model for paired-
associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 1961, 62, 335-347.
NOBLE, C. E. Measurement of associative value
(a), rated associations (a') and scaled meaning-
fulness (m') for the 2100 CVC combinations of
the English alphabet. Psychological Reports,
1961, 8, 487-521.
UNDERWOOD, B. J., EKSTRAND, B. R., & KEPPEL, G.
An analysis of intralist similarity with experi-
ments on conceptual similarity. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 4,
447-462.
UNDERWOOD, B. J., RUNQUIST, W. N., & SCHULZ,
R. W. Response learning in paired-associate
lists as a function of intralist similarity. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 70-78.
UNDERWOOD, B. J., & SCHULZ, R. W. Meaningful-
ness and verbal learning. Chicago: Lippincott,
1960.
(Received January 2, 1968)