Cited by 80Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryAging and Gerontology Research

The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face–name pairs in healthy older adults.

Open access
Tse, Chi-Shing, Balota, David A., Roediger, Henry L.·2010·Psychology and Aging

Abstract

We compared the benefits of repeated testing and repeated study on cued recall of unfamiliar face-name pairs in healthy middle-aged and older adults. We extended Karpicke and Roediger's (2008) paradigm to compare the effects of repeated study versus repeated testing after each face-name pair was correctly recalled once. The results from Experiment 1, which provided no feedback during the acquisition phase, yielded a crossover interaction: Middle-aged adults showed the expected benefit of repeated testing, whereas older adults produced a benefit of repeated study. When participants were given feedback in Experiment 2, both middle-aged and older adults benefited from repeated testing. We suggest that for face-name pairs, feedback may be particularly important for individuals who have relatively poor memory to produce benefits from repeated testing.

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/a0019933

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Repeated retrieval sessions with corrective feedback improve long-term retention.

    “Regardless of the spacing, there is evidence to suggest that repeated retrieval sessions with corrective feedback improves long-term retention (Butler, 2010; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Tse et al., 2010); for a review, see (Binks, 2018).”

    From Does difficulty moderate learning? A comparative analysis of the desirable difficulties framework and cognitive load theory (2025) · cites this paper as Tse et al., 2010

    Experiment 2’s Results report that feedback restored the benefit of repeated testing for final recall of face–name pairs, particularly in the oldest adults. The Present Research section specifies a 1.5-hour retention interval, and the paper does not establish that the benefit holds regardless of spacing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Balota DA Dolan PO Duchek JM Tulving E Craik FIM Memory changes in healthy young and older adults The Oxford Handbook of Memory 2000 395 410 Oxford University Press New York, NY
  2. Kang SHK McDermott KB Roediger HL Test format and feedback modulate the effect of testing on memory retention European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2007 19 528 558
  3. Wechsler D Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.): Administration and scoring manual 1997 Psychological Corporation San Antonio, TX

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tse, C.-S., Balota, D. A., & Roediger, H. L.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Published
2010
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
833-845
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
OpenAlex
W2096927945
Cited by
80
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (PO1AG003991; PO1AG026276)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
retesting, cued recall, older adults, middle-aged adults, feedback, face memory, aging and memory
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Association Learning, Face, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Mental Recall, Feedback, Psychological

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