Cited by 55Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Neural correlates of the spacing effect in explicit verbal semantic encoding support the deficient‐processing theory

Open access
Callan, Daniel E., Schweighofer, Nicolas·2010·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Spaced presentations of to‐be‐learned items during encoding leads to superior long‐term retention over massed presentations. Despite over a century of research, the psychological and neural basis of this spacing effect however is still under investigation. To test the hypotheses that the spacing effect results either from reduction in encoding‐related verbal maintenance rehearsal in massed relative to spaced presentations (deficient processing hypothesis) or from greater encoding‐related elaborative rehearsal of relational information in spaced relative to massed presentations (encoding variability hypothesis), we designed a vocabulary learning experiment in which subjects encoded paired‐associates, each composed of a known word paired with a novel word, in both spaced and massed conditions during functional magnetic resonance imaging. As expected, recall performance in delayed cued‐recall tests was significantly better for spaced over massed conditions. Analysis of brain activity during encoding revealed that the left frontal operculum, known to be involved in encoding via verbal maintenance rehearsal, was associated with greater performance‐related increased activity in the spaced relative to massed condition. Consistent with the deficient processing hypothesis, a significant decrease in activity with subsequent episodes of presentation was found in the frontal operculum for the massed but not the spaced condition. Our results suggest that the spacing effect is mediated by activity in the frontal operculum, presumably by encoding‐related increased verbal maintenance rehearsal, which facilitates binding of phonological and word level verbal information for transfer into long‐term memory. Hum Brain Mapp, 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.20894

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In this fMRI study, the left frontal operculum was activated more during spaced learning of paired-word associations than during massed learning.

    “In this study, a specific brain region associated with rehearsal of verbal memory, the left frontal operculum, was activated more during spaced learning of paired-word associations than during massed learning.”
  • A study using functional MRI during verbal learning supports the assumption that reactivations of a memory reactivate some of the same neurons and synapses that were activated in the original learning sessions.

    “Although finer-grain analyses are necessary, a study using functional MRI during verbal learning supports this assumption83.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bandettini PA ( 1999): The temporal resolution of functional MRI In: Moonen CTW, Bandettini PA, editors. Functional MRI. New York: Springer; pp 205–220. [Google Scholar]
  2. Smith EE,Jonides J,Koeppe RA,Awh E,Schumacher EH,Minoshima S ( 1995): Spatial vs. obect working memory: PET investigations. J Cogn Neurosci 7: 337–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Callan, D. E., & Schweighofer, N.
Affiliations
  • Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (JP)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-03-10
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
645-659
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2098149523
Cited by
55
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0535282)
  • Iran Telecommunication Research Center
  • National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
spacing effect, elaborative rehearsal, paired-associate learning, vocabulary acquisition, frontal operculum, long-term memory retention, cued recall
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cues, Female, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Mental Recall, Semantics, Vocabulary, Linear Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review