Cited by 9Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Encoding variability theory and the spacing effect in associate learning

Open access
Bray, James F., Robbins, Donald, Witcher, William B.·1976·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

Encoding variability theory accounts for the spacing effect by assuming that, as the lag between repetitions increases, the memorial representations approach independence. A method for testing this assumption in determining repetition effects in associative learning is suggested. In the independence hypothesis, we simply assume that each presentation of a word pair is represented independently, so that the expected proportion recalled is simple, P=P1+P2 - PIP2. Two studies are reported using a continuous paired-associate task representing a factorial combination of lag and retention interval as well as single-presentation control conditions. The results indicate that for moderately long retention intervals, as the lag between repetitions increases, the observed proportion recalled is first less, then eventually exceeds, and then returns to the level expected by an independence hypothesis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03213217

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Donovan and Radosevich's conclusion that retention interval has no effect on the magnitude of the distributed practice effect is at variance with a number of individual experimental findings.

    “This conclusion is at variance with a number of individual experimental findings (e.g., Balota, Duchek, & Paullin, 1989; Bray, Robbins, & Witcher, 1976; Glenberg, 1976; Glenberg & Lehmann, 1980; see Crowder, 1976, for a useful discussion).”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bray, Robbins, & Witcher, 1976

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 9

Authors
Bray, J. F., Robbins, D., & Witcher, W. B.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
1976-09
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
548-552
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W1967709730
Cited by
9
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
spacing effect, associative learning, paired-associate learning, independence hypothesis, retention interval

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