Cited by 115Memory Processes and InfluencesReading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Depth of processing and interference effects in the learning and remembering of sentences.

Open access
Kane, Janet H., Anderson, Richard C.·1978·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Made available in DSpace on 2010-12-21T22:38:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 ctrstreadtechrepv01977i00021_opt.pdf: 468702 bytes, checksum: fc0cfed576de26c1552cbf88c2c06fb2 (MD5) ctrstreadtechrepv01977i00021_tei.xml: 47904 bytes, checksum: 6c352b8b7de184a00c21b8422657443a (MD5) license.txt: 4924 bytes, checksum: 09e9f63a96b1a6d0405b83d57199700c (MD5) Previous issue date: 1977

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 · 10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.626

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • It is difficult to explain Kane and Anderson's (1978) findings by Grimaldi and Karpicke's account, because in their undetermined condition the targets were unrelated to the most obvious incorrect completions, so retrieval along with them is highly unlikely.

    “Furthermore, it is difficult to explain Kane and Anderson's (1978) findings by Grimaldi and Karpicke's account, since in their undetermined condition the targets were unrelated to the most obvious, incorrect, completions so it is highly unlikely that they would have been retrieved along with them.”

    From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as Kane and Anderson's (1978)

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Kane and Anderson found that generating errors improved final test performance over reading even in an undetermined condition where participants almost always erred.

    “Even in the undetermined condition, where participants nearly always produced an error, generating led to better final test performance than reading.”

    From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as Kane & Anderson, 1978

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kane, J. H., & Anderson, R. C.
Affiliations
Queens College, CUNY (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
1978-08
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
626-635
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2065778132
Cited by
115
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
levels of processing, proactive interference, sentence learning, sentence recall, recognition memory, sentence completion

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