English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Measuring lexical knowledge poses a challenge to the study of the influence of preexisting knowledge on the retrieval of new memories. Many tasks focus on word pairs, but words are embedded in associative networks, so how should preexisting pair strength be measured? It has been measured by free association, similarity ratings, and co-occurrence statistics. Researchers interpret free association response probabilities as unbiased estimates of forward cue-to-target strength. In Study 1, analyses of large free association and extralist cued recall databases indicate that this interpretation is incorrect. Competitor and backward strengths bias free association probabilities, and as with other recall tasks, preexisting strength is described by a ratio rule. In Study 2, associative similarity ratings are predicted by forward and backward, but not by competitor, strength. Preexisting strength is not a unitary construct, because its measurement varies with method. Furthermore, free association probabilities predict extralist cued recall better than do ratings and co-occurrence statistics. The measure that most closely matches the criterion task may provide the best estimate of the identity of preexisting strength.

What is preexisting strength? Predicting free association probabilities, similarity ratings, and cued recall probabilities