Learning Efficiency: Identifying Individual Differences in Learning Rate and Retention in Healthy Adults
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
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
The brain's default mode network
Raichle, M. E. (2015) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030 · Cited by 3,904 · see citing works
Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences Metric
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2015) · Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2 · Cited by 2,147 · see citing works
The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism.
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002 · Cited by 1,349 · see citing works
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1994) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658219408258951 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning
McDermott, K. B. (2021) · Annual review of psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051019 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationIndividual differences in long-term memory.
Unsworth, N. (2019) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000176 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Assessing long-term forgetting: A pragmatic approach
Della Sala, S., Baddeley, A., Peng, N., & Logie, R. (2024) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2023.11.009 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-06-28
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1436-1450
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- PMC
- PMC13647821
- 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
- green
- pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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