Practice Effects and Composition: A Reply to Anderson

Richard Alan Carlson, Walter Schneider

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Anderson (1989) argues that our results (Carlson, Sullivan, & Schneider, 1989) confirm several predictions of the ACT* account of skill acquisition, including the occurrence of composition. The ACT* theory does include mechanisms that can account for the major ordinal results of our experiment. However, the quantitative implications of the mechanisms that Anderson invokes to support the occurrence of composition result in unreasonable or inconsistent predictions for this data set. These mechanisms do not account for the observed effects in our control experiment, make the composition hypothesis difficult to falsify, and involve assumptions that negate the processing speed advantage that composition would provide. We also discuss several other points made by Anderson. Our results do provide weak support for some aspects of ACT*, while emphasizing the importance of quantitatively examining interrelations among mechanisms in complex models of skill acquisition.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)531-533
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1989

Fingerprint

experiment
Datasets
Skill Acquisition
Experiment
Prediction
Processing Speed

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{f2f03d2ed2f24d8d97ab330315be15b2,
title = "Practice Effects and Composition: A Reply to Anderson",
abstract = "Anderson (1989) argues that our results (Carlson, Sullivan, & Schneider, 1989) confirm several predictions of the ACT* account of skill acquisition, including the occurrence of composition. The ACT* theory does include mechanisms that can account for the major ordinal results of our experiment. However, the quantitative implications of the mechanisms that Anderson invokes to support the occurrence of composition result in unreasonable or inconsistent predictions for this data set. These mechanisms do not account for the observed effects in our control experiment, make the composition hypothesis difficult to falsify, and involve assumptions that negate the processing speed advantage that composition would provide. We also discuss several other points made by Anderson. Our results do provide weak support for some aspects of ACT*, while emphasizing the importance of quantitatively examining interrelations among mechanisms in complex models of skill acquisition.",
author = "Carlson, {Richard Alan} and Walter Schneider",
year = "1989",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.531",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "531--533",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0278-7393",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Practice Effects and Composition : A Reply to Anderson. / Carlson, Richard Alan; Schneider, Walter.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 15, No. 3, 01.01.1989, p. 531-533.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Practice Effects and Composition

T2 - A Reply to Anderson

AU - Carlson, Richard Alan

AU - Schneider, Walter

PY - 1989/1/1

Y1 - 1989/1/1

N2 - Anderson (1989) argues that our results (Carlson, Sullivan, & Schneider, 1989) confirm several predictions of the ACT* account of skill acquisition, including the occurrence of composition. The ACT* theory does include mechanisms that can account for the major ordinal results of our experiment. However, the quantitative implications of the mechanisms that Anderson invokes to support the occurrence of composition result in unreasonable or inconsistent predictions for this data set. These mechanisms do not account for the observed effects in our control experiment, make the composition hypothesis difficult to falsify, and involve assumptions that negate the processing speed advantage that composition would provide. We also discuss several other points made by Anderson. Our results do provide weak support for some aspects of ACT*, while emphasizing the importance of quantitatively examining interrelations among mechanisms in complex models of skill acquisition.

AB - Anderson (1989) argues that our results (Carlson, Sullivan, & Schneider, 1989) confirm several predictions of the ACT* account of skill acquisition, including the occurrence of composition. The ACT* theory does include mechanisms that can account for the major ordinal results of our experiment. However, the quantitative implications of the mechanisms that Anderson invokes to support the occurrence of composition result in unreasonable or inconsistent predictions for this data set. These mechanisms do not account for the observed effects in our control experiment, make the composition hypothesis difficult to falsify, and involve assumptions that negate the processing speed advantage that composition would provide. We also discuss several other points made by Anderson. Our results do provide weak support for some aspects of ACT*, while emphasizing the importance of quantitatively examining interrelations among mechanisms in complex models of skill acquisition.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0039295147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0039295147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.531

DO - 10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.531

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0039295147

VL - 15

SP - 531

EP - 533

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

SN - 0278-7393

IS - 3

ER -