Figure 1
Diagram demonstrating the procedural design for the two groups in Experiment 1.
Figure 2
Experiment 1. Mean percentage of correct responses on the cued recall test (meanings correctly recalled for the appropriate word) for participants in each of the two groups. Error bars show standard errors for the means.
Figure 3
Experiment 1. Mean percentage of correct responses on the multiple-choice meaning-to-word matching test (words correctly matched with the appropriate meaning) for participants in each of the two groups. Error bars show standard errors for the means.
Figure 4
Experiment 1. Mean percentage error rate on the semantic relatedness judgement task for participants in each of the two groups for untrained and trained items. The data shown are related trials only (trials in which the target and probe were semantically related). Error bars show standard errors for the means, corrected for the within-participants factor of training condition (Cousineau, 2005).
Figure 5
Experiment 1. Mean reaction time on the semantic relatedness judgement task for participants in each of the two groups for untrained and trained items. The data shown are correct related trials only (trials to which the participants correctly responded ‘yes’ that the target and probe were semantically related). Error bars show standard errors for the means, corrected for the within-participants factor of training condition (Cousineau, 2005).
Figure 6
Diagram demonstrating the procedural design for the two groups in Experiment 2.
Figure 7
Experiment 2. Mean percentage of correct responses on the cued recall test (meanings correctly recalled for the appropriate word) by participants in the AM-test group and PM-test group for new word meanings trained either 12 hours or 24 hours prior to test. Error bars show standard errors for the means, adjusted for the within-participants factor of training condition (Cousineau, 2005).
Figure 8
Experiment 2. Mean percentage of correct responses on the multiple-choice meaning-to-word matching test (words correctly paired with the appropriate definition) by participants in the AM-test group and PM-test group for new word meanings trained either 12 hours or 24 hours prior to test. Error bars show standard errors for the subject means, adjusted for the within-participants factor of training condition (Cousineau, 2005).
Figure 9
Experiment 2. Mean percentage error rate on the semantic relatedness judgement task for participants in the AM-test group and PM-test group for items that were either untrained, trained 12 hours prior to test, or trained 24 hours prior to test. The data shown are related trials only (trials in which the target and probe were semantically related). Error bars show standard errors for the means, corrected for the within-participants factor of training condition (Cousineau, 2005).
Figure 10
Experiment 2. Mean reaction time on the semantic relatedness judgement task for participants in the AM-test group and PM-test group for items that were either untrained, trained 12 hours prior to test, or trained 24 hours prior to test. The data shown are for correct related trials only (trials to which the participants correctly responded ‘yes’ that the target and probe were semantically related). Error bars show standard errors for the means, corrected for the within-participants factor of training condition (Cousineau, 2005).