Cited by 151Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Spacing repetitions over 1 week

Open access
Glenberg, Arthur M., Lehmann, Thomas S.·1980·Memory & Cognition

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/bf03213772

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Previous authors have suggested that test accuracy might follow an inverted U-function of gap.

    “The possibility that test accuracy might follow an inverted U-function of gap has been suggested by previous authors”

    From Optimizing distributed practice (2009) · cites this paper as Glenberg & Lehmann, 1980

    The Abstract and General Discussion (pages unavailable in our copy) say that recall varies with the gap between repetitions. They describe a proportionality rule: recall increases with spacing when the retention interval is relatively long, but decreases with spacing when it is relatively short. They do not suggest an inverted-U curve with a peak at an intermediate gap. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Glenberg and Lehmann (1980) showed results that mirror those of Gordon.

    “Glenberg and Lehmann (1980) showed results that mirror those of Gordon.”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Glenberg and Lehmann (1980)

    The Results and Discussion report Glenberg and Lehmann’s findings on repetition spacing and recall, but the claim does not specify which of Gordon’s results they supposedly mirror. A search of our copy for Gordon found no comparison, so the claimed similarity cannot be verified from this source. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
1980-11
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
528-538
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2077251296
Cited by
151
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.96
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, free recall, retention interval, incidental learning, retrieval context, long-term memory, word list learning
MeSH terms
Humans, Memory, Mental Recall, Time Factors

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