Cited by 172Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging

Open access

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined spacing effects on the learning of bird families and metacognitive assessments of such learning. Results revealed that spacing enhanced learning beyond massed study. These effects were increased by presenting birds in pairs so as to highlight differences among families during study (Experiment 1). Self-allocated study time provided evidence that more attention was paid during spaced than during massed study and resulted in no age differences in learning (Experiment 2). Metacognitive measures revealed sensitivity to the processing advantage of spaced study and to differences in classification difficulty across categories. No difference occurred in monitoring accuracy for young versus older adults. These findings provide evidence for discrimination- and attention-based accounts of the spacing effect in natural concept learning.

Overview

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/s13421-010-0063-y

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Kent State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wahlheim, Christopher N.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
2011-01-07
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
750-763
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2159313072
Cited by
172
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (T32AG000030)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
spacing effect, bird families, metacognition, aging, attention, discrimination learning, monitoring accuracy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aging, Animals, Association Learning, Attention, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Passeriformes

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