The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice.
Open accessAbstract
By balancing the spacing effect against the effects of recency and frequency, this paper explains how practice may be scheduled to maximize learning and retention. In an experiment, an optimized condition using an algorithm determined with this method was compared with other conditions. The optimized condition showed significant benefits with large effect sizes for both improved recall and recall latency. The optimization method achieved these benefits by using a modeling approach to develop a quantitative algorithm, which dynamically maximizes learning by determining for each item when the balance between increasing temporal spacing (that causes better long-term recall) and decreasing temporal spacing (that reduces the failure related time cost of each practice) means that the item is at the spacing interval where long-term gain per unit of practice time is maximal. As practice repetitions accumulate for each item, items become stable in memory and this optimal interval increases.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x · Cited by 1,582
When Does Feedback Facilitate Learning of Words?
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3 · Cited by 445
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704 · Cited by 421
Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms
Glenberg, A. M. (1976) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(76)90002-5 · Cited by 275
The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530 · Cited by 186
Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals.
Peterson, L. R., Wampler, R., Kirkpatrick, M., & Saltzman, D. (1963) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0046694 · Cited by 117
Cited by
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004 · Cited by 551
Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments
Sahni, N. S. (2015) · Quantitative Marketing and Economics · doi:10.1007/s11129-015-9159-9 · Cited by 103
A Meta-Analytic Review of the Benefit of Spacing out Retrieval Practice Episodes on Retention
Latimier, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09572-8 · Cited by 96
Detecting Learning Moment-by-Moment
Baker, R. S. J. D., Goldstein, A. B., & Heffernan, N. T. (2011) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.3233/jai-2011-015 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-117
- ISSN
- 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2192
- OpenAlex
- W2026480899
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 4.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1076-898x.14.2.101
- The paper
- Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.14.2.101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
