Cited by 27Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesCognitive Abilities and Testing

Does working memory capacity moderate the interleaving benefit?

Sana, Faria, Yan, Veronica X., Kim, Joseph A., Bjork, Elizabeth Ligon, Bjork, Robert A.·2018·Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.005

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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