Millisecond Forums

Hi Dave,

We’re hoping to replicate a study with the following procedure:
Materials
Four lists of trait adjectives were created: three target lists of 24 words each to be presented during the learning phase, and one distractor list of 72 words to be used for recognition testing. Each of the three target lists constituted a block within a continuous 72-item study list, bounded by two primacy and two recency buffers. Words were selected from a pool of normalised personality trait adjectives (Anderson, 1968). Trait words were all moderate to highly meaningful with meaningfulness ratings ranging from 326 to 386 (M358). The three target lists were equated for word length, (i.e., mean number of letters8) and valence, such that each list was composed of half positive and half negative traits. In Ander- son’s (1968) list, words were ordered according to their likeability ratings. In the present study a word was considered positive if it was one of the first 252 words listed in the list and negative if it had a ranking between 253 and 555. The mean ranking for positive words was 97 and the mean ranking for negative words was 391. The distrac- tor list was matched on the same variables to the group of three target lists.
Procedure
Participants were assessed individually, and gave informed consent before participating in experimental procedures. There were two parts to the study, an incidental learning phase and an immediate recognition memory test phase. During the learning phase, the participants’ task was to answer a question about each of the target words. Each list was encoded under one of three condi- tions: SR, semantic, and structural encoding. In the SR encoding task participants judged whether trait adjectives were self-descriptive by answering the question ‘‘Does this word describe you?’’ In the semantic encoding task participants made valence judgements on a semantic dimension, answering the question ‘‘Is the dictionary defini- tion of this word positive?’’ Under the structural encoding task participants were asked, ‘‘Is this word typed in upper case letters?’’
Participants were presented with 72 words, consisting of the three target lists blocked by encoding task. Presentation was blocked by condition for two reasons: First, the constant switching between tasks might adversely affect performance in older people and second, a pilot study suggested that carry-over effects might occur in mixed lists, particularly in older adults. However, order of encoding tasks was counterbalanced so that each task appeared in each ordinal position an equal number of times, and across participants, target lists appeared equally often in each of the three conditions. Word order was randomised within each list, and each participant received a different random order.
Participants were seated in front of a computer where the procedure was explained to them. On each trial one of the questions defining the learning task (e.g. ‘‘Does this word describe you?’’) was presented on the computer screen for 2 s, after which an adjective appeared for 4 s, and partici- pants made a yes/no response by pressing one of two keys on the computer keyboard. A blank screen was then displayed for 1 s and the next trial appeared automatically.
Following the study phase, there was a 2- minute interval in which people engaged in an unrelated distractor task, and then a yesno recognition memory test was given. The recognition test consisted of 144 words, half targets and half distractors, randomly mixed (i.e., not blocked by condition), which were presented one at a time on the computer screen. Participants indicated whether each word was old or new. Each item remained on the screen until participants pressed one of two keys to indicate if they recognised the word as one that had been previously presented.

Would you mind providing a simple example of how this might be implemented？

Thanks very much for your help!