Maintenance of knowledge: Questions about memory we forgot to ask.
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?
Every study examined here with a retention interval longer than one month demonstrated a benefit from distribution of learning across weeks or months, as opposed to learning across a one-day interval.
“Every study examined here with a retention interval longer than one month (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick, et al., 1993; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Cepeda et al., 2005) demonstrated a benefit from distribution of learning across weeks or months, as opposed to learning across a one-day interval;”
From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick, 1979
Successive relearning produces excellent and durable memory for learned material, more than either single-session testing or spaced practice on its own.
“A small evidence base suggests that successive relearning produces excellent and durable memory for learned material – more than either single-session testing or spaced practice on its own (e.g., (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick et al., 1993; Bahrick & Hall, 2005; Janes et al., 2020; Rawson et al., 2013; Rawson & Dunlosky, 2011, 2012, 2013; Vaughn et al., 2016).”
From The benefits of successive relearning on multiple learning outcomes. (2022) · cites this paper as Bahrick, 1979
In many studies, participants were trained to a criterion of perfect performance on all items during the second and subsequent learning sessions.
“In many studies, including some deservedly well-cited research in this area (e.g., Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987), participants were trained to a criterion of perfect performance on all items during the second and subsequent learning sessions.”
From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick, 1979
The Bahrick studies confounded number of relearning trials with ISI; there was more relearning at longer ISIs.
“These studies confounded number of relearning trials with ISI; that is, there was more relearning at longer ISIs.”
From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick, 1979
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 9 · Cited by 325
- Authors
- Bahrick, H. P.
- Affiliations
- Ohio Wesleyan University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bahrick, Harry P.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 1979-09
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 296-308
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2020936995
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 1.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- memory, forgetting, memory retention
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
