> The fact that neither of the two groups trained on the two different tasks (character-to-quantity and quantity-to-character) could generalize their learning t

> The fact that neither of the two groups trained on the two different tasks (character-to-quantity and quantity-to-character) could generalize their learning to the opposite task also doesn't bode well. I thought about it, and have found a similar phenomenon in my own experience. English is not my native language, I learned English mostly by reading books in English. I knew a loads of words from a several of authors and could grasp any grammatical construct easily. But I had a big problem with speaking or writing: I couldn't find words to express myself. I know words that means what I want. When I meet words, I could connect them to their meaning easily, but the reverse doesn't work so good. With a practice it becomes easier, but I guess I have to use a word to express myself at least once to master this word to a point, when I could remember it when it is needed. There is one more detail, maybe unrelated, I have a great troubles when I need translate English into Russian (my native language). I understand an English phrase, but I couldn't find Russian words to match English ones. Though it is an easier task than to find an English word which I know but haven't used before. This task also benefits from practice. Mind is a complex machine, sometimes two-way associative link could be established only by training this link in both directions.