Contextual variability in free recall
Open accessAbstract
According to contextual-variability theory, experiences encoded at different times tend to be associated with different contextual states. The gradual evolution of context implies that spaced items will be associated with more distinct contextual states, and thus have more unique retrieval cues, than items presented in proximity. Ross and Landauer (1978) tested this theory by examining whether the probability of recalling at least one of two studied items should increase as a function of the items' spacing. Their failure to observe this result was taken as strong evidence against contextual variability theory. We replicated their analysis on six recall datasets. For all of these datasets we found the pattern of results predicted by contextual-variability theory. These findings provide critical support for contextual-variability theories of episodic memory.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 protective effect of increased study spacing is explained in part by increased contextual variability at the time of encoding when items are spaced rather than massed, leading to more cues available to aid in recall.
“It is also possible that the protective effect of increased study spacing is explained in part by increased contextual variability at the time of encoding when items are spaced rather than massed, leading to more cues available to aid in recall.43”
From Sleep Restriction Impairs Vocabulary Learning when Adolescents Cram for Exams: The Need for Sleep Study (2016) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 59
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bridge D Memory and cognition: What difference does gender make? Unpublished Honor’s thesis 2006 Syracuse University
- Authors
- Lohnas, L. J., Polyn, S. M., & Kahana, M. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kahana, Michael J.
- Venue
- Journal of Memory and Language
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 249-255
- ISSN
- 0749-596X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3046415
- OpenAlex
- W2102927664
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Dana Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health (R29MH055687, R01MH055687)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- free recall, episodic memory, retrieval cues, replication
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
