Cited by 86Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect?

Open access
Putnam, Adam L., Roediger, Henry L.·2013·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

The testing effect is the finding that retrieval practice can enhance recall on future tests. One unanswered question is whether first-test response mode (writing or speaking the answer) affects final-test performance (and whether final-test response mode itself matters). An additional unsettled issue is whether written and oral recall lead to differences in the amount recalled. In three experiments, we examined these issues: whether subjects can recall more via typing or speaking; whether typing or speaking answers on a first test can lead to better final-test performance (and whether an interaction occurs with final-test response mode) and whether any form of overt response leads to better final-test performance as compared to covert retrieval (thinking of the answer but not producing it). Subjects studied paired associates; took a first test by typing, speaking, or thinking about responses; and then took a second test in which the answers were either spoken or typed. The results revealed few differences between typing and speaking during recall, and no difference in the size of the testing effect on the second test. Furthermore, an initial covert retrieval yielded roughly the same benefit to future test performance as did overt retrieval. Thus, the testing effect was quite robust across these manipulations. The practical implication for learning is that covert retrieval provides as much benefit to later retention as does overt retrieval and that both can be effective study strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13421-012-0245-x

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Covert (silent) retrieval practice is an effective learning tool.

    “That is, covert (silent) retrieval practice is an effective learning tool (Putnam & Roediger 2013).”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Putnam & Roediger 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Putnam, Adam L.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
2012-08-17
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
36-48
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2117744500
Cited by
86
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
testing effect, retrieval practice, response mode, typing, speaking, paired associates, retention, study habits
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Paired-Associate Learning, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Speech, Thinking, Writing

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