The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention
Open accessAbstract
To achieve enduring retention, people must usually study information on multiple occasions. How does the timing of study events affect retention? Prior research has examined this issue only in a spotty fashion, usually with very short time intervals. In a study aimed at characterizing spacing effects over significant durations, more than 1,350 individuals were taught a set of facts and--after a gap of up to 3.5 months--given a review. A final test was administered at a further delay of up to 1 year. At any given test delay, an increase in the interstudy gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, final test performance. The optimal gap increased as test delay increased. However, when measured as a proportion of test delay, the optimal gap declined from about 20 to 40% of a 1-week test delay to about 5 to 10% of a 1-year test delay. The interaction of gap and test delay implies that many educational practices are highly inefficient.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 8 Own interpretation · 5 No full text of the sources · 5 Own method · 3 Sources not found · 2 Partly supported · 2 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Several studies involving modest time intervals ranging from minutes to days have found that memory at the final test is best for intermediate gap durations (e.g., Balota, Duchek, & Paullin, 1989;Glenberg, 1976;Glenberg & Lehmann, 1980;Young, 1966; see Cepeda et al., 2006, for a meta-analysis focused on this point).”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Balota, Duchek, & Paullin, 1989 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Glenberg, 1976 source
- Supportedcites Cepeda et al., 2006 source
The General Discussion (p. 11) reports that, for a given retention interval, an intermediate, non-zero inter-study interval maximized final-test accuracy: longer gaps eventually reduced it. The within-study analysis (p. 9) identifies several studies with results consistent with this pattern, including Balota et al., Glenberg, and Glenberg and Lehmann. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Other distributed practice theories, such as encoding variability (Glenberg, 1979) and study-phase retrieval (Murray, 1983) are potentially consistent with the basic results seen in Figure 3.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Glenberg, 1979 source
Glenberg’s introduction (p. 1) describes his account of spacing effects in terms of variable encoding, and the General Discussion (p. 15) says an encoding-variability theory could account for several spacing phenomena. The citation identifies the theory; whether it fits the citing paper’s Figure 3 is the citing authors’ own qualified assessment. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Murray, 1983
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At any given retention interval, an increase in the inter-study gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, test performance.”
- Also stated in: § Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983). · boosted
“For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Abstract
boosteddirectn = 1,350- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983). · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A recent review of distributed practice studies involving verbal recall (Cepeda et al., 2006) examined more than 400 papers.However, only about a dozen of these looked at retention intervals as long as one day, with just a handful examining retention intervals longer than one week.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cepeda et al., 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optimum gap value was about 20% of the test delay for delays of a few weeks, falling to about 5% when delay was one year.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 1,350- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Figure 4, for example, the optimal gap for RI = 350 equals 23 days, which is just 7% of the RI.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, for any gap duration, recall performance must decline as a function of RI (i.e., test delay) in a negatively accelerated fashion in order to produce the familiar forgetting curve consistent with more than 100 years of memory findings.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The forgetting curve is negatively accelerated (information loss per unit time gradually shrinks).
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results presented here document the existence of enormous and non-monotonic spacing effects that unfold over very long periods of time, with study time equated across conditions.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploration of the data indicated that a number of other functions can also provide quite decent fits to the data, with various tradeoffs between interpretability of parameters and simplicity of the function, and we do not contend that this function offers a uniquely accurate characterization of the surface-merely a reasonable one.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were 26 gap-by-retention interval combinations, and each subject was randomly assigned to one of these.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Stimuli and materials.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were also no detectable differences between the groups in age, gender, number of obscure facts known before beginning the study, or a wide array of background and demographic characteristics.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Subjects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We held constant the number of restudy trials in the second study session, thus allowing us to look at the effect of gap apart from the amount of time provided for restudy.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The results showed that increasing the inter-study spacing out to 56 days improved performance (Figure 2).”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bahrick et al., 1993 source
plaindirectn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The non-monotonic pattern noted in short-term studies was indeed found: Recall success (for both facts and names) was best for a 1-month gap, with much worse recall for shorter gaps and slightly poorer recall for longer ones.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Preliminary Data
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cepeda et al., 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationaln = 150- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, 56 days is actually a relatively short proportion of the extremely long retention intervals used in Bahrick et al.'s study, and it is this ratio that is probably most critical, as will emerge below.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bahrick et al., 1993 source
hedgedcorrelationaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-completion rates increased at the longer delays, as one would expect in any multi-year study (Table 1)”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Subjects.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As described in the Appendix, the reliability and validity of internet data collection has become increasingly clear in recent years.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reips, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gosling et al., 2004 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The validity of internet testing has been well supported in recent reviews (Gosling et al., 2004), with excellent correspondence between results obtained with internet samples are results obtained in the laboratory (e.g., Birnbaum, 1999;Krantz & Dalal, 2000;McGraw, Tew, & Williams, 2000;Reips, 2002).”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Appendix: Comments and Validity of Internet Memory Testing Data
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 32 obscure trivia facts and object names used in the study are representative of the kinds of information people need to learn and retain in educational settings.
“Stimuli consisted of 32 obscure but true trivia facts (e.g.,”
The paper relies on this without support.
The forgetting curve is negatively accelerated (information loss per unit time gradually shrinks).
“The amount of information lost per unit of time gradually shrinks, producing the well-known increasingly gradual forgetting curve.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Working memory operates on a time scale of seconds or minutes.
“Working memory operates on a time scale of seconds or minutes, whereas gap effects are seen on a scale of day and weeks (optimal gap is several weeks, for longer retention intervals).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 26 gap-by-retention interval combinations adequately sample the retention surface.
“To properly characterize the interaction of gap and retention interval, the current study combines various gap and RI values, for a total of 26 different conditions.”
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The optimal ratio of spacing and retention interval should be 10-30%.”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT: AN EFL CLASSROOM STUDY (2022) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, such research also emphasizes that the effect of retention intervals on the distributed practice advantage does not continuously increase as the retention interval increases (Cepeda et al., 2008).”
From The Distributed Practice Effect on Classroom Learning: A Meta-Analytic Review of Applied Research (2025) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There are two issues: (1) learning is not spaced-out despite evidence that enduring retention is achieved through substantial gaps in practice (gaps of months to achieve knowledge lasting years) (Cepeda et al., 2008);”
From Using version control to document genuine effort in written assignments: a protocol with examples for universities (2023) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“According to cognitive psychologists (Cepeda et al., 2008;Rohrer & Pashler, 2007), the optimal spacing depends on the retention interval (i.e., the timing of delayed posttest).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT: AN EFL CLASSROOM STUDY (2022) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Citations
Cites
From dissertation abstracts international
(1974) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/988616.988619 · Cited by 12,208
Editorial Office (1997) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1381/096089297765555359 · Cited by 3,941
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 · Cited by 2,932
Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 · Cited by 1,888
Self-citationSchmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x · Cited by 1,582
Principles of Learning and Memory
Murdock, B. B., & Crowder, R. G. (1977) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422060 · Cited by 1,306
Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting
Reips, U. (2002) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1026/1618-3169.49.4.243 · Cited by 878
Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall.
Rundus, D. (1971) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031185 · Cited by 797
On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution
Jacoby, L. L. (1978) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90393-6 · Cited by 667
Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting
Reips, U.-D. (2002) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1026//1618-3169.49.4.243 · Cited by 469
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Murray J.T., 1983, Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3058
- Young J.L., 1966, Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 3699
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 625
Flett, K. B., Bousvaros, A., Carpenter, J. F., Millrinen, C. E., Martin, P., & Sandora, T. J. (2017) · Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · doi:10.1093/jpids/pix090 · Cited by 9
Degree of learning and linear forgetting
Fisher, J. S., & Radvansky, G. A. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211056464 · Cited by 10
Paik, J., & Ritter, F. E. (2015) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1067332 · Cited by 9
Surgery Website as a 24/7 Adjunct to a Surgical Curriculum
Jyot, A., Baloul, M. S., Finnesgard, E. J., Allen, S. J., Naik, N. D., Ibarra, M. A. G., Abbott, E., Gas, B. L., Lara, F. J. C., Zeb, M. H., et al. (2017) · Journal of surgical education · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.09.019 · Cited by 9
Explanations and Implications of Diminishing Intervention Impacts Across Time
Bailey, D. H. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815952-1.00013-x · Cited by 9
Thijssen, D. H. J., Hopman, M. T. E., van Wijngaarden, M. T., Hoenderop, J. G. J., Bindels, R. J. M., & Eijsvogels, T. M. H. (2019) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1534-x · Cited by 9
Implementation of Mastery-Based Testing in Calculus I
Mangum, A. J. (2020) · PRIMUS · doi:10.1080/10511970.2019.1709587 · Cited by 9
Knabe, M. L., & Vlach, H. A. (2020) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.07.007 · Cited by 9
Input spacing in second language classroom settings: Replications of Bird (2010) and Serrano (2011)
Rogers, J. (2020) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444820000439 · Cited by 9
Simple Heuristics in a Social Game
Hertwig, R., Fischbacher, U., & Bruhin, A. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0002 · Cited by 12
Rehearsal and verbal reminders in facilitating compliance with safety rules
Molesworth, B. R. C., Tsang, M. H., & Kehoe, E. J. (2011) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.026 · Cited by 9
Despite their promise, there's still a lot to learn about techniques that support durable learning.
Dunlosky, J. T., & Rawson, K. A. (2012) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.10.003 · Cited by 9
Re-learning and remembering in the lesioned brain
Rapp, B. C., & Wiley, R. W. (2019) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107126 · Cited by 10
Paradoxes of learning and memory
Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511978098.010 · Cited by 10
Strong Effects on Weak Theoretical Grounds: Understanding the Distributed Practice Effect
Kuepper-Tetzel, C. E. (2014) · Cited by 9
Alisoy, H. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3733146/v1 · Cited by 9
RecutClub.com: An Open Source, Whole Slide Image-based Pathology Education System
Christensen, P. A., Lee, N. E., Thrall, M. J., Powell, S. Z.-E., Chévez‐Barrios, P., & Long, S. W. (2017) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_72_16 · Cited by 8
Picking the Right Dose: The Challenges of Applying Spaced Testing to Education
Larsen, D. P. (2014) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-14-00170.1 · Cited by 8
More Stable Memory Retention of Novel Words Learned from Fast Mapping than from Explicit Encoding
Chen, S., Wang, Y., & Yan, W. (2022) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-022-09921-4 · Cited by 8
Fraundorf, S. H., Caddick, Z. A., Nokes‐Malach, T. J., & Rottman, B. M. (2023) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-023-00508-8 · Cited by 10
The spacing effect and metacognitive control.
Mulligan, N. W., & Peterson, D. J. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0033866 · Cited by 8
Memory in Educational Settings
Marsh, E. J., & Butler, A. C. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0020 · Cited by 8
Nyland, R. L., & Sawarynski, K. E. (2017) · MedEdPORTAL · doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10610 · Cited by 8
Necessity of Sleep for Motor Gist Learning in Mice
Pettibone, W. D., Kam, K., Chen, R. K., & Varga, A. W. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00293 · Cited by 8
Scaling Effective Learning Strategies: Retrieval Practice and Long-Term Knowledge Retention in MOOCs
Davis, D., Kizilcec, R. F., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. (2018) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2018.53.3 · Cited by 11
The Lives of Others: Social Rationality in Animals
Stevens, J. R., & King, A. J. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0015 · Cited by 8
Does testing enhance learning in continuing medical education?
McConnell, M., Hou, C., Panju, M., Panju, A. A., & Azzam, K. (2018) · Canadian Medical Education Journal · doi:10.36834/cmej.42236 · Cited by 9
Kubotani, Y., Fukuhara, Y., & Morishima, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.00268 · Cited by 30
Santhosh, V. N., Coutinho, D. A., Ankola, A. V., et al. (2024) · Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1002/jdd.13561 · Cited by 7
Student's study behaviors as a predictor of performance in general chemistry I
Sickle, L. L. V., & Frey, R. F. (2024) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/d3rp00207a · Cited by 11
Antony, J. W., Liu, X. L., Zheng, Y., Ranganath, C., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2026) · doi:10.21428/8e6ba8ef.d9f5dd19 · Cited by 7
Banda, L. O. L., Liu, J., Zhou, W., & Banda, J. T. (2024) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241241368 · Cited by 7
Student Attitudes to an Online, Peer-instruction, Revision Aid in Science Education
Raighne, A. M., Casey, M. M., Howard, R. G., & Ryan, B. J. (2015) · Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice · doi:10.14297/jpaap.v3i1.135 · Cited by 7
Enhancing a Blended Learning Approach to CAD Instruction Using Lean Manufacturing Principles
Yip‐Hoi, D., & Welch, J. (2015) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/p.23994 · Cited by 7
Optimizing song retention through the spacing effect
Katz, J. J., Ando, M., & Wiseheart, M. (2021) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00345-7 · Cited by 7
Using Cumulative Homework in Calculus Classes
Beagley, J. E., & Capaldi, M. (2019) · PRIMUS · doi:10.1080/10511970.2019.1588814 · Cited by 7
Pairing practice and feedback with animations optimizes student learning in online module
Brasier, D. J., Melville, M. C., Hershock, C., & Rule, G. S. (2019) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12388 · Cited by 7
Firth, J. (2020) · Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy · doi:10.1080/02607476.2020.1829965 · Cited by 9
Social Learning: A Route to Good Cue Orders
García‐Retamero, R., Takezawa, M., Woike, J. K., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0012 · Cited by 7
[editor], D. M. (2025) · Australasian anaesthesia · doi:10.60115/11055/1305 · Cited by 7
Suzuki, S., Takatsu, H., Matsuura, R., Koyama, M., Saeki, M., & Matsuyama, Y. (2025) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/02655322251348725 · Cited by 6
Karataş, N. B., Özemir, O., Lovelett, J. T., Demir, B., Erkol, K., Veríssimo, J., Erçetin, G., & Ullman, M. T. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211053525 · Cited by 20
Magee, J., O’Connor, K. E., & Swain, N. (2025) · Education 3-13 · doi:10.1080/03004279.2025.2514696 · Cited by 7
A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Feedback Timing on Learning Outcomes in Computer-Assisted Learning
Kandemir, E. N., Esposito, E., Gurgand, L., & Ramus, F. (2026) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-026-10117-8 · Cited by 7
Ada, S. E., Say, H., Uğur, E., & Öztop, E. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3402089 · Cited by 7
Ayotte‐Beaudet, J., Hasni, A., Vinuesa, V., Rodrigue-Poulin, É., Carmo, G. Q. D., Beaudry, M., L’Heureux, K., & Paquette, A. (2024) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2024.2332741 · Cited by 6
DRL-SRS: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach for Optimizing Spaced Repetition Scheduling
Xiao, Q., & Wang, J. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14135591 · Cited by 13
Antipova, V., Siwetz, M., Engelhardt, M., Fellner, F. A., Manhal, S., Niedermair, J. F., Ondruschka, B., Pietras, S. M., Poilliot, A. J., Pretterklieber, M. L., et al. (2024) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.24206 · Cited by 6
Soares, R. V., Pedrosa, R. B. D. S., Sandars, J., & Cecilio-Fernandes, D. (2025) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2427735 · Cited by 7
Cleary, A. M., & Robinson, D. H. (2025) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/josi.70005 · Cited by 7
Spitzer, M., Moeller, K., Richter, E., Frede, L., & Bardach, L. (2025) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102181 · Cited by 9
The Heart Has Its Reasons: Social Rationality in Mate Choice
Lenton, A. P., Penke, L., Todd, P. M., & Fasolo, B. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0016 · Cited by 6
McHugh, D., Feinn, R., McIlvenna, J., & Trevithick, M. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11030090 · Cited by 7
What Type of Debrief is Best for Learning during Think-Pair-Shares?
Hershock, C., Barrett, M. L., McCarthy, M., Melville, M. C., & Mertz, J. (2021) · Teaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal · doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.5 · Cited by 6
Simulação em saúde para ensino e avaliação: conceitos e práticas
Médica, A. B. D. E. (2021) · doi:10.4322/978-65-86819-11-3 · Cited by 23
Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice
Gupta, M. W., Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01236-4 · Cited by 7
Maxwell, D. T., Meyer, S., & Bolch, C. (2021) · Innovation and Education · doi:10.1186/s42862-021-00015-x · Cited by 6
Repeated quizzing of basic mathematics concepts to improve grades in economics classes
Leggett, J., Morgan, B., & Tang, K. K. (2022) · The Journal of Economic Education · doi:10.1080/00220485.2022.2111386 · Cited by 7
Probabilistic Persuasion: A Brunswikian Theory of Argumentation
Reimer, T. O., Hertwig, R., & Sipek, S. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0004 · Cited by 9
The challenges of launching a MOOC and reusing that material in a blended campus class
Dunn, K. G. (2015) · Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5751 · Cited by 6
Do Weekly Alerts From a Mobile Application Influence Reading During Residency?
Grad, R. M., Pluye, P., Wong, E. Y. L., Brailovsky, C., Moscovici, J. L., Kaczorowski, J. A., Rodríguez, C., Luconi, F., Rousseau, M., Karanofsky, M., et al. (2017) · PRiMER · doi:10.22454/primer.2017.243866 · Cited by 6
Effects of the initial test interval and feedback timing on L2 vocabulary retention
Guo, L. (2018) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2018.1551416 · Cited by 6
Translating a Typing-Based Adaptive Learning Model to Speech-Based L2 Vocabulary Learning
Wilschut, T., van der Velde, M., Sense, F., et al. (2021) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3450613.3456825 · Cited by 6
Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L., III (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn106 · Cited by 7
Varela, M. A. (2020) · Cronfa (Swansea University) · doi:10.23889/suthesis.53503 · Cited by 6
Optimizing Fact-Learning with a Response-Latency-Based Adaptive SystemPreprint
Sense, F., & van Rijn, H. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/chpgv · Cited by 8
Wang, R., Zulkifli, N. N., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14080898 · Cited by 5
Control knowledge tracing: Modeling students' learning dynamics from a control-theory perspective
Loong, C. N., & Chang, C. C. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100292 · Cited by 10
Wilschut, T., Sense, F., & van Rijn, H. (2024) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12769 · Cited by 5
Zou, F., Kuhl, B. A., DuBrow, S., & Hutchinson, J. B. (2025) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2025.115232 · Cited by 6
Selective consolidation of learning and memory via recall-gated plasticity
Lindsey, J. W., & Litwin-Kumar, A. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.90793 · Cited by 8
Hey, R., McDaniel, M. A., & Hodis, F. A. (2024) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-024-09389-8 · Cited by 14
Yan, V. X., Schuetze, B. A., & Rea, S. D. (2023) · Human Arenas · doi:10.1007/s42087-023-00383-1 · Cited by 6
Daly, M. J., Mulhall, C. M., O'Neill, J. P., Eppich, W., Shpigelman, J., Cahir, C., Fraughen, D. D., McElduff, E. J., Uhomoibhi, C., & Condron, C. M. (2024) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-024-00314-2 · Cited by 8
The role of variable retrieval in effective learning
Butowska, E., Kliś, P., Zawadzka, K., & Hanczakowski, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2413511121 · Cited by 9
Optimizing distributed practice online
Rogers, J., Nakata, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2025) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263124000706 · Cited by 5
Learning Better, Learning More: The Benefits of Expanded Retrieval Practice
Yan, V. X., Eglington, L. G., & Garcia, M. A. (2020) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.03.002 · Cited by 7
Enhancing Vocabulary Retention in Low-Achieving EFL Students: Massed or Spaced?
Lee, I.-H., Maechtle, C., & Hu, C. (2021) · English Teaching & Learning · doi:10.1007/s42321-020-00074-y · Cited by 6
Cleary, A. M., McNeely-White, K. L., Hausman, H. E., Dawson, J., Kuhn, S., Osborn, R. M., Huebert, A. M., & Rhodes, M. G. (2021) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.01.001 · Cited by 5
Design and evaluation of an application-based pharmaceutical calculations review module
Hegener, M. A. (2021) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2021.06.016 · Cited by 7
Gerbier, É., & Koenig, O. (2015) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.3917/anpsy.153.0435 · Cited by 14
Kılıç, A., Hoyer, W. J., & Howard, M. W. (2013) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/0361073x.2013.779200 · Cited by 7
Cooperate with Equals: A Simple Heuristic for Social Exchange
Johnson, T., & Smirnov, O. A. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0005 · Cited by 6
Adlof, S. M., Baron, L. S., Scoggins, J., Kapelner, A. D., McKeown, M. G., Perfetti, C. A., Miller, E., Soterwood, J., & Petscher, Y. (2019) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2019_lshss-voia-18-0143 · Cited by 5
The Science of Learning: Breaking News
Straumanis, J. (2011) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/193229681100500208 · Cited by 5
Różycka, A. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2588387 · Cited by 8
Emotionally based strategic communications as a new tool in defensive cognitive warfare
Ćosić, K., Popović, S., & Wiederhold, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1751406 · Cited by 4
Shen, S., Qi, W., Zeng, J., Li, S., Liu, X., Yaping, F., & Cao, S. (2026) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104799 · Cited by 7
High-pressure in music education: Understanding the phenomenon and empowering students
Komarenko, O., Ramirez, G., & Neumeister, K. S. (2024) · International Journal of Music Education · doi:10.1177/02557614241265907 · Cited by 5
Practice makes better? The influence of increased practice on task conflict in the Stroop task
Najenson, J., Zaks-Ohayon, R., Tzelgov, J., & Fresco, N. (2025) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-024-01677-7 · Cited by 4
Nakata, T. (2015) · Vocabulary Learning and Instruction · doi:10.7820/vli.v04.1.nakata · Cited by 4
Hochschuldidaktik als Wissenschaft
Rhein, R., Wildt, J., & 2022, O. L. E. U. B. (2023) · Hochschulbildung: Lehre und Forschung · doi:10.14361/9783839461808 · Cited by 13
Design Principles for Gamified Pedagogical Conversational Agents
Khosrawi-Rad, B., Borchers, A., Grogorick, L., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2023) · International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Mindtrek) · doi:10.1145/3616961.3616973 · Cited by 7
Collaborative memory: A selective review
Rajaram, S., Greeley, G. D., & Peña, T. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15754-7.00045-6 · Cited by 4
Effects of massed and spaced task repetitions on L2 writing task performance and task emotions
Tabari, M. A., Lee, H., & Hanzawa, K. (2025) · Reading & Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-024-10628-2 · Cited by 5
Do worked examples boost the spacing effect on lasting learning?
Krauspe, J., Ebersbach, M., Ludwig, A., & Scharf, F. (2025) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102103 · Cited by 5
The optimal sequence for learning can depend on one's strategy: An individual differences approach
Little, J. L., Nepangue, J. A., & Longares, A. (2025) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102684 · Cited by 4
The “Less-Is-More” Effect in Group Decision Making
Luan, S., Katsikopoulos, K. V., & Reimer, T. O. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0010 · Cited by 4
Metsämuuronen, J., & Mattsson, M. T. (2013) · Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · doi:10.5539/jedp.v3n2p89 · Cited by 5
A Memory-Sensitive Classification Model of Errors in Early Second Language Learning
Tomoschuk, B., & Lovelett, J. T. (2018) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-0527 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H.
- Affiliations
- York University (CA)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- University of South Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pashler, Harold
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1095-1102
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2169419728
- Cited by
- 631
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 44
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- escholarship.org
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0542013, 0720375)
- U.S. Department of Education
- Institute of Education Sciences
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- spacing effect, retention, test delay, spaced learning, long-term memory
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Retention, Psychology, Space Perception, Time Factors, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
