Mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice at short retention intervals
Abstract
The testing effect refers to the retention benefit conferred by prior retrieval of information from memory. Although the testing effect is a robust phenomenon, a common assumption is that reliable memory benefits only emerge after long retention intervals of days or weeks. The present study focused on potential test-induced retention benefits for brief retention intervals on the order of minutes and tens of seconds. Participants in four experiments studied lists of words. Some of the items were subjected to an initial cued recall test, and others were re-presented for additional study. Free recall tests were administered in each experiment following retention intervals ranging from 30 s to 8 min. When initial retrieval practice was successful (Experiments 1 through 3), or feedback compensated for unsuccessful retrieval (Experiment 4), significant testing effects emerged at all retention intervals. Results are discussed in the context of a bifurcated item-distribution model and highlight the importance of initial test performance and the type of analysis employed when examining testing effect data.
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?
The level of success on the initial retrieval attempt is important in determining whether an advantage of retrieval practice will appear at short intervals.
“Rowland & DeLosh (2015), however, demonstrate that the level of success on the initial retrieval attempt is important in in determining whether an advantage of retrieval practice will appear at short intervals.”
From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Rowland & DeLosh 2015
When performance on the initial test is low, there is an unfair advantage for the restudy condition because 100% of the items are restudied but only a small fraction of the items are successfully recalled on the initial test.
“They suggest that when performance on the initial test is low, there is an unfair advantage for the restudy condition, such that 100% of the items are restudied but only a small fraction of the items are successfully recalled on the initial test.”
From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Rowland & DeLosh 2015
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 34 · Cited by 64
- Authors
- Rowland, C. A., & DeLosh, E. L.
- Affiliations
- Colorado State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rowland, Christopher A.
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-03-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 403-419
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W1997433454
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- testing effect, retrieval practice, retention interval, short-term memory, word lists, free recall, cued recall, feedback, memory retention
- MeSH terms
- Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult, Memory, Episodic
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