About Contact Help us

HCI, User Experience, Information Architecture, Usability, and more

“Interaction-Design.org has given me a lot of help, now it is the time for return”

---William P. Steen

Last 3 Donors

1. Stephen J. Kidd

2. Maria Hull

3. Rosemary J. Bennett

...more generous donors

Support us

Funding progress for 2010:

References

Authors

David G. Andrewes

Printer-friendly

How to cite

David G. Andrewes

Personal Homepage:
psych.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff/AndrewesD.html

About the author:
No description available of David G. Andrewes...

ADD DESCRIPTION

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

ADD PUBLICATION

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

SHARE YOUR RESEARCH

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by David G. Andrewes (bibliography)

» 1990 «

Edit | Del

Andrewes, David G. and Maude, Dana (1990): A Computerised Clinical Test of Forgetting Based on the ACT Model of Memory Retrieval. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 32 (2) pp. 233-244

“The ACT model of interference (Anderson, 1976) was applied to a visual-search paradigm using an elderly population (N=22) 65-85 years, in order to develop a computerised clinical test of forgetting. The test is to be used to identify similarities and differences between etiologically-distinct amnesic populations on the basis of susceptibility to interference. A visual-search task manipulated the number of examples presented in association with a particular category. This was achieved by requiring the subject to search for a varied number of distractor examples with a target example. As predicted by the ACT model, increasing the number of distractors resulted in slower identification of the target item, as measured by increased recognition response latency. Also as predicted, increasing the number of distractors also increased the number of recognition errors. The interference effect produced by the distractors was reduced by strengthening the association between the target word and the category. This was achieved by presenting the target and category a second time in the presence of different distractors. The test's potential as an automated assessment device is discussed.”

Copyrights may apply

ADD PUBLICATION