Helianthus – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

There is a relationship to later recall.

The relationship of original difficulty to difficulty in maintaining information is examined in these analyses. They look at the persistence of specific errors over the course of the maintenance study. Is an item that is difficult to decode also difficult to maintain ?

Phase III summaries give the data for this set of analyses. The data set was selected because of the records provided by Phase III. Between May 1985 and July 1986 there were a total of 406 items. Maintenance trials began in 1985 and have continued ever since.

A 27 % sample was used to determine the number of trials required to reach the criterion. The criterion had a perfect performance. On a single day, 5 s on three of five trials. There were an average of 31 trials that reached this criterion of learning. 2 for the items. The smallest number of trials required to reach this criterion was eight. 70 trials were required. 34 items were analysed and maintained on the progressive schedule. The analysis looked at the number of errors made.

Over the next 9 years, the performance of 12 of these items was examined. Five items have an average of 56. 2 trials were for the difficult group. Seven items have an average of 18. The group consisted of 7 trials. There were only minimal differences in difficulty of maintaining items when compared to the number of trials required. The average number of trials required over the 9-year period was 156. For the difficult group. 2 trials were required for the easy group. There were 8 tests required. Although the small sample size precludes a definitive statement on the subject, it appears that over this time period the differences found for these items have been erased. We seem to have an answer to the first question : Do difficult items remain difficult ? Smaller discrepancies are not likely for items that have experienced more rehearsals.

The original assumption was that the same errors would happen again and again throughout the years that the material is maintained. Errors did not persist beyond the initial stages of the stimuli that were closely observed. Only two or three of the hundreds of errors recorded were repeated in a similar fashion during maintenance rehearsals. Is there an explanation for the lack of consistency in errors ? Errors were eliminated during the long sessions. The sessions were usually separated by mere hours. It is surprising that different failures occurred when the response chain weakened under the pressure of the longer retention periods.

The answer is no, if the same errors did not occur, did the errors follow a simple pattern ? The results are not surprising.

Let me show you two examples. Grass of Parnassus, Parnassia glauca, and Saxifrage are included in the first EWF. A succession of mispronunciations of the scientific family name occurred after a series of errors based on physical similarities of the plant to others. These mispronunciations were eliminated after 19 trials. The correct name was given on eight trials. An incorrect family name was given on 11 of the 22 primary tests. The item was mistaken for a member of the grass family five times, three times as a lily, and once as a bedstraw. The rarity of the family in the pool has been a weakness from the beginning. The resolution of pronunciation difficulty would have been shared over family members, as the item is frequently identified as a member of a more frequently occurring family.

The second example is EWF # 286 : Common sunflower. Only 10 trials were required to reach the criterion. The item was given correctly on the second trial, but additional trials were needed before the response was given. There were four types of errors during maintenance trials.


A very large head leads to the responses “ giant ” or “ tall ”, and giganteus, all of which are appropriate for other sunflowers. During the first 2 12 years of the delay, five of the six responses occurred.


The species name is annus, although a variation of it appeared as part of the common name. The combination occurred six times, with all six errors occurring after a minimum of 212 days. One of these errors occurs in conjunction with a late error.


At the 92-day delay, the name of the plant was replaced by helian-themum.


The common name of another sunflowers was replaced by “ Compass plant ” at the 308-day delay.

Many of the items that were carefully examined were involved in confusions. The common name of EWF # 54 is wood anemone. After the 58-day delay, 13 of 14 trials were changed to include the words “ rue anemone, ” “ false rue anemone, ” and “ sweet anemone. ” The 58-day delay made a shift in the flowering spurge. Prior to this time, the specimen was clearly recognized as an Euphorbia. It was confused with several plants which had some resemblance to this plant. 10 of 14 times it is identified as abuttercup. The common name cycles of “ meadow rue, ” “ tall meadow rue, ” “ sweet meadow rue, ” and “ early meadow rue ” are of particular relevance to the present argument. The common name of EWF # 261 is moneywort. The names “ creeping Charlie ” and “ creeping Jenny ” were replaced on 8 of 14 primary tests.

The relationship of original difficulty to difficulty in maintaining information over a long time period suggests that difficulty is relative and that whatever may predict difficulty of items late in recall, original difficulty. Evolutionary changes take place during the acquisition and maintenance of knowledge according to the examination of persistence of specific errors. It seems clear that the kinds of errors that are made throughout the course of recall depend on the characteristics of the specific item being recalled and the surrounding body of information. There is a rare family in this pool. There are still difficulties in identifying the item, but few are caused by confusion with another species within or outside the family. Over the course of 58 days, confusions among species/genus within common families begin to occur with considerable regularity. For these items, it ‘s easy to identify the families, and more often than not, it ‘s just a slip of the tongue.

Source: https://shopdothang.com
Category: Flower

Bài viết liên quan

Tư vấn miễn phí (24/7) 094 179 2255