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 matchedcites Balota, Duchek, & Paullin, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- 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.
- Not matched
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 401–500 of 625
Sandhofer, C. M., & Schonberg, C. C. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35594-4_8 · Cited by 4
Learning Sciences Perspective on Engineering of Distance Learning. Part 1
Tchoshanov, M. A. (2021) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-2-33-49 · Cited by 5
Effects of repeated implicit bias training in a North American university
Lehman, B. R., Colbert, K., Goltz, S. M., Mayer, A. L., & Rouleau, M. D. (2022) · Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management · doi:10.1080/1360080x.2022.2145927 · Cited by 5
Flipping Professional Development to Improve Writing Skills in Undergraduates
Grose‐Fifer, J., Crossman, A. M., & Baker, S. M. (2021) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2021.1954871 · Cited by 4
Parkin, A., Parker, A., & Dagnall, N. (2022) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2022.2122997 · Cited by 5
The effect of presentation rate on foreign-language vocabulary learning
Zeelenberg, R., de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., et al. (2014) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.975730 · Cited by 4
Stability of individual parameters in a model of optimal fact learning
Sense, F., Meijer, R. R., & van Rijn, H. (2015) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 4
Using a Model for Learning and Memory to Simulate Learner Response in Spaced Practice
Riedesel, M. A., Zimmerman, N. L., Baker, R. S., et al. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_81 · Cited by 4
Prabhu, R., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., & Meisel, N. A. (2020) · ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE) · doi:10.1115/detc2020-22449 · Cited by 4
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Carvalho, P. F. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09663-8 · Cited by 6
Brain development and maturation in the context of learning
Cachia, A., Ribeiro, S. T. G., Chiao, J. Y., Friston, K. J., Hillman, C. H., Linzarini, A., Lipina, S. J., Howard‐Jones, P. A., Dubois, J., Jay, T. M., et al. (2022) · UNESCO MGIEP eBooks · doi:10.56383/zevv4282 · Cited by 4
Teachers’ beliefs about memory: What are the implications for in-service teacher education?
Firth, J. (2018) · Psychology of Education Review · doi:10.53841/bpsper.2018.42.2.15 · Cited by 4
Vul, E. (2010) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 5
Self-citationOrbán, L. L. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1169938 · Cited by 3
Spaced vocabulary acquisition while incidental listening by ESL university students
Zubenko, T., Gavrylenko, A., Zhyvotovska, T., & Vasylieva, N. (2022) · Advanced Education · doi:10.20535/2410-8286.250501 · Cited by 3
Arslan, B., Wilschut, T., van Rijn, H., & van der Velde, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98417-4_34 · Cited by 3
McConnell, M. (2022) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1097/ceh.0000000000000434 · Cited by 4
Adaptation of the Multi-Concept Multivariate Elo Rating System to Medical Students' Training Data
Kandemir, E. N., Vie, J.-J., Sanchez-Ayte, A., Palombi, O., & Ramus, F. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3636555.3636858 · Cited by 7
Rapid Learning in Frontline Grocery Workers During the COVID ‐19 Pandemic
Halilova, J. G., Valtchanov, D., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2024) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.70008 · Cited by 3
Applying distributed practice in the schools to enhance retention of spelling words
Petersen‐Brown, S., Riese, A. M., Schneider, M. M., Ray, J. E., & Clonkey, H. R. (2023) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.22943 · Cited by 4
Distributed practice and time pressure interact to affect learning and retention of arithmetic facts
Jazbutis, O. R., Wiseheart, M., Radvansky, G. A., & McNeil, N. M. (2023) · Journal of Numerical Cognition · doi:10.5964/jnc.7721 · Cited by 2
Namaziandost, E., Anwar, C., & Neisi, L. (2020) · EduLite Journal of English Education Literature and Culture · doi:10.30659/e.5.1.55-65 · Cited by 3
Can Simple Heuristics Explain Moral Inconsistencies?
Fleischhut, N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0017 · Cited by 3
An Examination of the Testing and Spacing Effects in a Middle Grades Social Studies Classroom
Liming, M. C., & Cuevas, J. A. (2017) · Georgia Educational Researcher · doi:10.20429/ger.2017.140104 · Cited by 3
Encouraging Metacognition in Digital Learning Environments
Devers, C. J., Devers, E. E., & Oke, L. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46215-8_2 · Cited by 4
Hegele, M., & Sülzenbrück, S. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-53898-8_19 · Cited by 3
Semester-level Spacing but Not Procrastination Affected Student Exam Performance
YeckehZaare, I., Mulligan, V., Ramstad, G., & Resnick, P. (2022) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3506860.3506907 · Cited by 6
Foot-Seymour, V., & Wiseheart, M. (2022) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-022-00358-w · Cited by 4
A computational model for individual differences in non-reinforced learning for individual itemsPreprint
Salomon, T., Itzkovitch, A., Daw, N. D., & Schönberg, T. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.03.20.484477 · Cited by 4
Predicting memory formation over multiple study episodesPreprint
Sievers, C., & Renoult, L. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/937ft · Cited by 2
Roelle, J., & Richter, T. (2025) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102277 · Cited by 8
Rejuvenating the HELM Workbooks as Online STACK Quizzes in 2020
Zerva, K., Sangwin, C., Jones, I., & Quinn, D. (2022) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v17i23.35923 · Cited by 2
Weekly Cumulative Quizzes in Organic Chemistry
Beerepoot, M. T. P., Kosonen, J. A., & Haugland, M. M. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00741 · Cited by 2
Ruitenburg, S. K., Guldemont, P., Kirschner, P. A., Jarodzka, H., & Camp, G. (2025) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.70032 · Cited by 4
Retrieval practice enhances learning in real primary school settings, whether distributed or not
Franzoi, L., Cembrani, V., Mulatti, C., & Treccani, B. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1632206 · Cited by 2
Transforming Higher Education Through Equity-Driven Leadership
Adorable, K. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2322-0.ch005 · Cited by 2
Distribution of grammar learning through writing tasks: A potential role of proficiency
He, J., & Suzuki, Y. (2023) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12498 · Cited by 5
Zhu, J.-P., & Zhang, J.-Y. (2024) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/jov.24.5.2 · Cited by 2
Antipova, V., Siwetz, M., Engelhardt, M., Fellner, F. A., Manhal, S., Niedermair, J. F., Ondruschka, B., Poilliot, A. J., Wree, A., & Hammer, N. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14080905 · Cited by 2
Nalumenya, B., Rubinato, M., Kennedy, M., & Catterson, J. (2024) · World · doi:10.3390/world5040050 · Cited by 5
Arthur, W., Naber, A. M., Muñoz, G. J., Keiser, N. L., Atoba, O. A., Cho, I., & Bennett, W. R. (2024) · Human Performance · doi:10.1080/08959285.2024.2436171 · Cited by 4
Moon, K.-D., Park, Y. K., Kim, M., & Jeong, C. Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2025.3548942 · Cited by 2
Gordon, K. R., Moss, D., Swinburne-Romine, R., Fleming, K., & Storkel, H. (2025) · Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2025_lshss-24-00147 · Cited by 1
Howard‐Jones, P. A. (2014) · Cited by 2
Gavriel, J. (2015) · Education for Primary Care · doi:10.1080/14739879.2015.1119979 · Cited by 2
Testing theories of skill learning using a very large sample of online game players
Stafford, T., & Dewar, M. (2013) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 2
Berg, N., Abramczuk, K., & Hoffrage, U. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0008 · Cited by 2
Simple Heuristics and Information Sharing in Groups
Reimer, T. O., & Hoffrage, U. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0011 · Cited by 2
Automated Feedback as a Convergence Tool
Chenoweth, T., Corral, K. L., & Scott, K. D. (2016) · ScholarWorks (Boise State University) · Cited by 2
Ekuni, R., de Souza, B. M. N., & Pompéia, S. (2018) · Revista Brasileira de Extensão Universitária · doi:10.24317/2358-0399.2018v9i2.7842 · Cited by 1
Testing the Retrieval Effort Theory
Wang, B., & Zhao, C. (2019) · Swiss Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000229 · Cited by 2
Short vs. long: cognitive load, retention and changing class structures
Sheridan, B. J., Smith, B. O., & Pleggenkuhle‐Miles, E. G. (2017) · Education Economics · doi:10.1080/09645292.2017.1305099 · Cited by 2
Lee, J., Park, J., Jung, D., Suh, C., & Henning, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1002/jdd.12572 · Cited by 2
Memory Skill: The Proceduralization of Declarative Memory Through Retrieval Practice
Racsmány, M., & Szöllősi, Á. (2021) · Language, cognition and mind · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_25 · Cited by 3
Preparing the Frontlines: Delivering Special Pathogen Training to Maryland Hospital Staff
Sulmonte, C. J., Flinn, J. B., Yusuf, H. E., Martin, E. K., Luciano, N. J., Kim, H., Choe, P. G., Das, A., Garibaldi, B. T., & Hynes, N. A. (2024) · Health Security · doi:10.1089/hs.2023.0035 · Cited by 2
Gerbier, É., & Koenig, O. (2015) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.4074/s0003503315000159 · Cited by 3
Classroom instruction results in better exam performance than online instruction in a hybrid course
Glass, A. L., & Sinha, N. (2018) · The Journal of General Psychology · doi:10.1080/00221309.2018.1494128 · Cited by 2
BCL-model helpt supervisor en supervisant
Dirksen, G. (2008) · Supervisie en coaching · doi:10.1007/bf03099302 · Cited by 2
Blech, C., & Gaschler, R. (2018) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/1475725718779684 · Cited by 3
Lag Effects for Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning Through QuizletPreprint
Serfaty, J., & Serrano, R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/yhrvx · Cited by 2
Hake, H. S., Leonard, B., Ulibarri, S., et al. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.05.13.23289941 · Cited by 2
Theory of systems memory consolidation via recall-gated plasticityPreprint
Lindsey, J. W., & Litwin-Kumar, A. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.90793.1 · Cited by 2
Memory interference and the benefits and costs of testing
Potts, R. B. (2014) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 2
Majety, P., Daaboul, Y., & Rencic, J. J. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.50052 · Cited by 1
Engaging with extremely online psychology students: Creating a meme “study guide”
Zidenberg, A. M., & Sparks, B. (2024) · Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.56230/osotl.75 · Cited by 1
Impact of the Timing of Content Introduction on Student Exam Performance in General Chemistry
Howcroft, A. W., & King, D. B. (2024) · The journal of college science teaching · doi:10.1080/0047231x.2024.2393036 · Cited by 1
Taking time: Auditory statistical learning benefits from distributed exposure
de Waard, J., Theeuwes, J., & Bogaerts, L. (2025) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02634-w · Cited by 1
BINGO! Elevating Medical Physiology Tutorials Through Gamification
Grellinger, K. T., Phan, H., Sheakley, M. L., et al. (2025) · MedEdPORTAL · doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11491 · Cited by 1
Five Strategies for Improving the Effectiveness of Diversity Training
Castillo, G. F., Hart, K., Stewart, D., DeBellis, L., Balandran, A., & Hebl, M. R. (2025) · Palgrave studies in equity, diversity, inclusion, and indigenization in business · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89380-3_3 · Cited by 1
Honda, Y., Tanizawa, K., Masai, K., Nakamura, Y., Choi, H., & Fukushima, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93746-0_13 · Cited by 1
Does Memory Accessibility Affect How Much We Learn from Studying?
Kornell, N. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15060760 · Cited by 1
Renjisha, R. (2025) · International Journal of Teacher Education Research Studies (IJTERS) · doi:10.63090/ijters/3049.1614.0017 · Cited by 1
Chouinard, A. J., Shihadih, D. S., Lee, S. W., Gutzler, S. J., Heinrich, K. K., Asgari, M., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2025) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.00046-25 · Cited by 1
Spaced Learning Supports Productive Struggle in an Online Learning Platform
Schonberg, C. C., Hargis, M. B., An, X., & Bashkov, B. M. (2025) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09914-x · Cited by 1
Rassaei, E. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103955 · Cited by 1
Kim, S. S. (2013) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 1
A study model with spacing and test effect
Qing-xian, W., & An, W. (2014) · IEEE Workshop on Advanced Research and Technology in Industry Applications (WARTIA) · doi:10.1109/wartia.2014.6976433 · Cited by 1
On the Link between Fact Learning and General Cognitive Ability
Sense, F., Meijer, R. R., & van Rijn, H. (2016) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 2
Learning techniques that really work
Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429061523-21 · Cited by 1
THE EFFECT OF INPUT SPACING ON EFL LEARNERS' VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE
Farvardin, M. T., & Sararoodi, A. B. (2020) · LANGUAGE LITERACY Journal of Linguistics Literature and Language Teaching · doi:10.30743/ll.v4i2.3068 · Cited by 2
Schiff, R., Sasson, A., Green, H., & Kahta, S. (2021) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-021-01048-z · Cited by 1
Why Simple Heuristics Make Life Both Easier and Harder: A Social–Psychological Perspective
Fiedler, K., & Wänke, M. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0018 · Cited by 2
Brown, R. W., & Covault, C. E. (2015) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.4933146 · Cited by 1
The Science of Learning and Art of Education in Cardiology Fellowship
Stokes, N., & Berlacher, K. L. (2022) · Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal · doi:10.14797/mdcvj.1088 · Cited by 1
Módszertani alapozással a fenntartható oktatásért: az elengedhetetlen informatika
Czinege, M., & Erdélyi, É. (2023) · Integrált gondolkodás és integrált vállalati jelentés: Fenntarthatósági kockázatok a gazdasági és energetikai válság árnyékában (BGE Magyar Tudomány Ünnepe konferencia) · doi:10.29180/978-615-6342-50-8_2 · Cited by 1
A combination of restudy and retrieval practice maximizes retention of briefly encountered facts
Ashby, S. R., & Zeithamová, D. (2023) · Frontiers in Cognition · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1258955 · Cited by 1
Design and Implementation of Didactic Process Based on Simulation
Plaskura, P. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48325-7_10 · Cited by 1
Long-term forgetting is independent of age in healthy children and adolescents
Pellegrini, F., Uebelhardt, N., Bigi, S., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1338826 · Cited by 1
Spacing effects in learning and memory
Carpenter, S. K., & Pan, S. C. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15754-7.00020-1 · Cited by 4
Lindquist, D. S., Sparrow, B. E., & Lindquist, J. M. (2024) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-024-09680-w · Cited by 7
Lipnevich, A. A., Janelli, M., Park, M. J., Calistro, T., & Eßer, F. J. (2024) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2024.2398513 · Cited by 1
The Advice of Others: When and How We Benefit From It
Biele, G., & Rieskamp, J. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0013 · Cited by 1
Efecto de la enseñanza extensiva en la memorización del léxico: un estudio de investigación-acción
Mella, M. S., & Sánchez‐Gutiérrez, C. (2017) · Sintagma revista de lingüística · doi:10.21001/sintagma.2017.29.04 · Cited by 1
Slow and steady: The effects of teaching a one-semester introductory mechanics class over a year
Thouless, M. D. (2017) · International journal of engineering education · Cited by 1
Casey, D. (2018) · Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) · doi:10.21427/d7q526 · Cited by 1
Testing the Testing Effect in Electrical Science with Learning Approach as a Factor
Eustace, J., & Pathak, P. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58459-7_18 · Cited by 1
Difficulty, Spacing, and the Optimization of Declarative Learning: An Applied Approach.
Lawson, P. A. (2021) · NCSU Libraries Repository (North Carolina State University Libraries) · Cited by 1
Investigating interactions between types of order in categorization
Mezzadri, G., Reynaud-Bouret, P., Laloë, T., & Mathy, F. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-25776-0 · Cited by 1
Individualization of practice distribution in second language grammar learning
Suzuki, Y. (2021) · Benjamins current topics · doi:10.1075/bct.116.02suz · Cited by 1
On the cognitive and neuronal effects and mechanisms of working memory training
Salminen, T. (2016) · edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) · doi:10.18452/17487 · Cited by 1
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
