Cited by 49Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

Learning Efficiency: Identifying Individual Differences in Learning Rate and Retention in Healthy Adults

Open access
Zerr, Christopher L., Berg, Jeffrey J., Nelson, Steven M., Fishell, Andrew K., Savalia, Neil K., McDermott, Kathleen B.·2018·Psychological Science

Abstract

People differ in how quickly they learn information and how long they remember it, yet individual differences in learning abilities within healthy adults have been relatively neglected. In two studies, we examined the relation between learning rate and subsequent retention using a new foreign-language paired-associates task (the learning-efficiency task), which was designed to eliminate ceiling effects that often accompany standardized tests of learning and memory in healthy adults. A key finding was that quicker learners were also more durable learners (i.e., exhibited better retention across a delay), despite studying the material for less time. Additionally, measures of learning and memory from this task were reliable in Study 1 ( N = 281) across 30 hr and Study 2 ( N = 92; follow-up n = 46) across 3 years. We conclude that people vary in how efficiently they learn, and we describe a reliable and valid method for assessing learning efficiency within healthy adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797618772540

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There are individual differences in long-term memory.

    “Certainly there are individual differences in long-term memory (Unsworth 2019, Zerr et al. 2018), but whether such differences extend to the testing effect remains to be seen.”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Zerr et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zerr, C. L., Berg, J. J., Nelson, S. M., Fishell, A. K., Savalia, N. K., & McDermott, K. B.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Baylor University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
Corresponding author
McDermott, Kathleen B.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2018-06-28
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
1436-1450
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2811139190
Cited by
49
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Dart NeuroScience, LLC
  • McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
learning efficiency, individual differences, learning rate, retention, memory assessment, test-retest reliability, healthy adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Individuality, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Random Allocation, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Word Association Tests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review