Does working memory capacity moderate the interleaving benefit?
Abstract
Interleaving examples of different categories, rather than blocking examples by category, often enhances the learning of those categories, but does this benefit vary by learner? On one hand, it could be argued that interleaving places increased demands on a learner's working-memory capacity (WMC), which could foster suboptimal learning for those with lower WMC than for those with higher WMC. On the other hand, studies show that learners with higher WMC seem to process information in more effective ways, in which case lower-WMC learners may benefit more from interleaving than higher-WMC learners. To test these two hypotheses, across five studies, participants studied examples of perceptual categories (artists’ styles) or text-based categories (non-parametric statistics) presented either blocked or interleaved. On a final test, participants classified new examples of the studied categories. We found a robust benefit of interleaving across both domains, but this benefit did not vary by WMC.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Interleaved practice is not moderated by varying working memory capacity.
“interleaved practice is not moderated by varying working memory capacity (Sana et al., 2018).”
From Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses (2021) · cites this paper as Sana et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Sana, F., Yan, V. X., Kim, J. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Athabasca University (CA)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- McMaster University (CA)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-369
- ISSN
- 2211-3681 (ISSN-L)
- 2211-369X
- OpenAlex
- W2808266530
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (767-2012-2053; 430-2017-00593)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- interleaving, working memory capacity, category learning, individual differences, perceptual categories, statistical categories, classification learning
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