The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 54 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval
Open accessAbstract
Kornell and Bjork (Psychological science 19:585-592, 2008) found that interleaving exemplars of different categories enhanced inductive learning of the concepts based on those exemplars. They hypothesized that the benefit of mixing exemplars from different categories is that doing so highlights differences between the categories. Kang and Pashler (Applied cognitive psychology 26:97-103, 2012) obtained results consistent with this discriminative-contrast hypothesis: Interleaving enhanced inductive learning, but temporal spacing, which does not highlight category differences, did not. We further tested the discriminative-contrast hypothesis by examining the effects of interleaving and spacing, as well as their combined effects. In three experiments, using photographs of butterflies and birds as the stimuli, temporal spacing was harmful when it interrupted the juxtaposition of interleaved categories, even when total spacing was held constant, supporting the discriminative-contrast hypothesis. Temporal spacing also had value, however, when it did not interrupt discrimination processing.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
48 Own interpretation · 28 No full text of the sources · 21 Own result · 11 Own method · 4 Supported · 4 Sources not found · 3 Supported so far · 2 No basis given · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The results were consistent with prior studies (Kang & Pashler, 2012;Wahlheim et al., 2011) in supporting the discriminative-contrast hypothesis: Interrupting discrimination processing, which was accomplished in the present experiment by inserting trivia questions between interleaved exemplars, impaired inductive learning, whereas interleaved order, the bottom row depicts four Fieldfare exemplars.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang & Pashler, 2012 source
- Supportedcites Wahlheim et al., 2011 source
Experiment 1’s Results and discussion report that highlighting differences between bird families improved classification, consistent with the discrimination account; the General discussion likewise says presenting exemplars in pairs enhanced the benefit of spacing. The citing sentence identifies trivia questions as a manipulation in its own present experiment, not in Wahlheim et al. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Wahlheim et al. (2011) also found benefits of simultaneous presentation of different categories for inductive learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Discriminative-contrast hypothesis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wahlheim et al. (2011) source
Experiment 1’s Method describes side-by-side presentation of birds from different families in the spaced condition. Its Results and discussion report that this arrangement enhanced the spacing advantage when participants classified novel birds, supporting the claim about inductive learning. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“items studied once and restudied after a delay are recalled better in the long term than are items studied and restudied in quick succession (for reviews, see Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006;Dempster, 1988;Glenberg, 1979).”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006 source
The General Discussion (p. 11) reports that items studied at two separated points were recalled better than items given the same study time nearly uninterrupted, including at retention intervals longer than a month. The Educational Implications section (p. 14) also reports better long-term retention when learning episodes were separated rather than concentrated in one session. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dempster, 1988 source
- Supportedcites Glenberg, 1979 source
The Tests of the Theory (p. 7) says that increasing the lag between presentations increases free recall and that many investigations have confirmed this pattern. The Results and Discussion (p. 13) report that delayed final recall followed the predicted increasing-lag pattern, supporting better later recall after spaced than closely successive presentations. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“More recently, Goldstone (1996) found better performance when categories alternated on 25 % of the trials than when they alternated on 75 % of the trials-that is, less-frequent alternation appeared to produce more learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Goldstone (1996) source
Experiment 2’s Method defines the infrequent-alternation group as having a .75 probability of repeating the previous category, meaning categories alternated on 25% of trials; the frequent group had a .25 probability of repetition, meaning 75% alternation. The Results report significantly higher categorization accuracy for the infrequent-alternation group. The claim’s “more learning” is a reasonable characterization of that performance difference. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Importantly, however, even when interleaving is beneficial, it may seem counterproductive: The great majority of the participants in the present study, as well as those in prior studies (Kornell & Bjork, 2008;Kornell et al., 2010;Wahlheim et al., 2011;Zulkiply et al., 2012), judged that they had learned more effectively with blocked than with interleaved study.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Concluding comment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kornell & Bjork, 2008 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kornell et al., 2010 source
- Partly supportedcites Wahlheim et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports that a majority in Kornell et al. (2010) judged massed study more effective on posttest questionnaires. But Wahlheim et al.’s own Experiment 1 found category-learning judgments higher for spaced than massed study, so it does not support the claim that its participants predominantly judged blocked study more effective. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“inserting groups of trivia questions between successive groups of exemplars-and, thus, separating exemplars from within a given species temporally-did not impair inductive learning significantly.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Temporal spacing also had value, however, when it did not interrupt discrimination processing.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Correct performance on the final test, which is illustrated in Fig. 2, was significantly affected by participants' learning conditions, F(2, 99) 0 8.53, p < .001,η 2 p ¼ :15.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A planned comparison of performance in the spaced versus contiguous conditions, limited to only the blocked condition, showed that spacing was beneficial for this type of presentation, t(112) 0 2.018, p < .05,d 0 .379,whereas Kang and Pashler (2012) had found no significant effect of spacing during blocked learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, as is further indicated in Fig. 4, a significant interaction between presentation order (interleaved vs. blocked) and presentation mode (contiguous vs. spaced) was also obtained, F(1, 112) 0 10.909, p < .01,η 2 p ¼ :089 .”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- Not yet classified. 13
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Categories can be defined by both similarities and differences, and these two dimensions are not completely independent (see Goldstone, 1996, for a discussion of the degree to which these concepts are isolated vs. interrelated).”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Goldstone, 1996 source
The Interrelated Concepts section describes categories in terms of both overlap among their members and differentiation from other categories. The CONCLUSION treats within-category and between-category similarity as related diagnostics on a continuum from isolated to interrelated concepts. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Although the present pattern of results seems inconsistent with prior studies of inductive learning that have demonstrated a benefit of blocked practice (Goldstone, 1996;Kurtz & Hovland, 1956;Whitman & Garner, 1963), the conceptual framework just described may offer an explanation of these apparently divergent results.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Goldstone, 1996 source
In Experiment 2, the paper compares frequently and infrequently alternated categories; infrequent alternation gives learners successive examples of the same category. The Results (page unavailable) state that categorization accuracy was greater with infrequent alternation, supporting the attributed benefit of blocked practice. The proposed explanation for the citing paper’s divergent results is the citing authors’ own framing, not a further finding attributed to Goldstone. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kurtz & Hovland, 1956 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Whitman & Garner, 1963 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In the adopted framework, blocking facilitates within-category similarity processing, while interleaving facilitates between-category difference processing.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Another test, one that emphasized discrimination less and similarity more-such as an inference rather than a classification test (see Chin-Parker & Ross, 2002)-might have produced an advantage of blocking, or at least a smaller advantage of interleaving, even if the training conditions had been the same.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Chin-Parker & Ross, 2002 source
The Tests section (page unavailable) explains that a classification test determines category membership and may be insensitive to within-category correlations. The Present Experiments section (page unavailable) likewise contrasts classification’s focus on category membership with inference’s focus on within-category information. The citation supports that test/task contrast; the possible effect on blocking versus interleaving is the citing authors’ own hypothetical extension. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test showed that accuracy was significantly lower in the alternating-trivia condition than in the other two conditions, for which performance did not differ significantly.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding both interleaving and spacing, however, did not lead to the best performance-interleaving alone did-so clearly, the benefits of spacing and interleaving were subadditive.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In three experiments, using photographs of butterflies and birds as the stimuli, temporal spacing was harmful when it interrupted the juxtaposition of interleaved categories, even when total spacing was held constant, supporting the discriminative-contrast hypothesis.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As is indicated in Fig. 4, a significant overall advantage of interleaving over blocking was obtained, F(1, 112) 0 12.34, p < .001,η 2 p ¼ :099:”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
Not yet classified.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Another planned comparison showed that in the absence of spacing, the induction learning produced by interleaving was superior to that produced by blocking, t(56) 0 4.794, p < .0001,d 0 0.678, replicating prior findings (e.g., Kang & Pashler, 2012;Kornell & Bjork, 2008).”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Spacing provided no benefit when it interrupted juxtaposition between categories in Experiment 2, although spacing was beneficial in the blocked condition of Experiment 2-when it did not interrupt juxtaposition-contrary to the prior findings by Kang and Pashler.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kang and Pashler
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study block did not have a significant effect on performance, nor did it interact with spacing.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, although blocking was counterproductive in the contiguous condition and had almost no overall effect in the spaced condition, participants in both groups believed that blocking the exemplar presentations had helped them learn more effectively than did interleaving the exemplar presentations.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spacing was beneficial both when exemplars were blocked in Experiment 2 and when they were interleaved in Experiment 3.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the basis of this finding, they concluded that the value of interleaving lies in juxtaposing different categories, a process that they referred to as discriminative contrast.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Discriminative-contrast hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang and Pashler (2012) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Consistent with this conclusion, they also found that simultaneous presentations of multiple paintings by the same artist did not benefit learning (Exp.1), whereas simultaneous presentations of multiple paintings by different artists were beneficial (Exp.2)—again, presumably, because they promoted discriminative contrast.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Discriminative-contrast hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang and Pashler (2012) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“presenting one item at a time is different from presenting all items at oncedoing the latter places greater demands on working memory, and the discrimination processes that appear to be at work during a simultaneous presentation may not happen, or may not happen as effectively, during single presentations.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Discriminative-contrast hypothesis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They hypothesized that the benefit of mixing exemplars from different categories is that doing so highlights differences between the categories.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kornell and Bjork (2008) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combined, these two planned comparisons demonstrated that, as compared to a baseline condition in which presentations were not interleaved or spaced, adding spacing or interleaving enhanced learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of Experiment 1 suggested that spacing, as implemented in the grouped-trivia condition, might have impaired performance slightly relative to the contiguous condition, but Experiment 1 did not include a noninterleaved condition of the type that would permit an assessment of the value of interleaving, relative to blocking, as a function of temporal spacing.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Experiment 2
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They found that although interleaving led to a benefit in inductive learning, as compared to blocking, temporal spacing did not affect the benefit of interleaving.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > The present experiments
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zulkiply and Burt (in press)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the total spacing was held constant in these two conditions, but the alternating-trivia condition interrupted comparison processes (by placing trivia questions between the photos), whereas the grouped-trivia condition did not.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Experiment 1
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The basic logic was that if inserting trivia questions did not disrupt inductive learning, it would then be difficult to conclude that discrimination processes are responsible for the benefit of interleaving.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > The present experiments
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An unrelated task was inserted rather than having no filler task during the time delay so as to prevent rehearsal of the previously viewed image.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Experiment 1
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, between successive exemplars of a given species, exactly the same events transpired in the groupedtrivia and alternating-trivia conditions; that is, an average of eight trivia questions and seven photos intervened between successive exemplars of a given species in each condition.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Experiment 1
Not yet classified.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, interference and task were held constant across all three conditions in Experiment 3.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Kang and Pashler (Applied Cognitive Psychology 26:97-103, 2012) obtained results consistent with this discriminative-contrast hypothesis: Interleaving enhanced inductive learning, but temporal spacing, which does not highlight category differences, did not.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang and Pashler (2012) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They found a benefit of interleaving over blocking (replicating Kornell & Bjork, 2008), but no benefit of temporal spacing over blocking.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Discriminative-contrast hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang and Pashler (2012) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of results is consistent with the discriminative-contrast hypothesis.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Kornell and Bjork's (2008) participants rated blocking as being more effective than interleaving, despite having just completed a test on which they had performed better for categories learned under interleaved rather than under blocked conditions.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Experiment 2
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kornell and Bjork (2008) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spacing also enhanced learning, however, when exemplars were blocked in Experiment 2 and when they were interleaved in Experiment 3, suggesting that multiple mechanisms may contribute to the value of distributed practice (spacing and interleaving) in inductive learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The foremost practical implication of the present findings is that successful inductive learning entails the juxtaposing of exemplars from different categories so as to promote discriminative contrast.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.
In the paper
“That is, delay allows time for forgetting, making retrieval of previous exemplars from memory more difficult, but thereby enhancing learning when such retrievals are successful.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thios & D'Agostino, 1976 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When spacing and variation were combined, the participants were no longer able to retrieve the earlier version of the advertisement.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Taylor and Rohrer (2010), for example, asked students to learn four kinds of mathematics problems using a task that could be categorized as requiring inductive learning, because participants never saw the same problem twice during the learning phase.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Taylor and Rohrer (2010) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Spacing and interleaving have both been described as”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bjork, 1994 source
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Spacing also facilitated recall, but only when the exact same advertisement was repeated.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Related to such considerations, the subadditivity of spacing and interleaving that we observed in the present experiment is analogous, perhaps, to the subadditivity of spacing and variation found by Appleton-Knapp, Bjork, and Wickens (2005) in participants' memory for advertisements of hypothetical products.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Appleton-Knapp, Bjork, and Wickens (2005) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One potential criticism of Experiment 2 is that spacing was confounded with retention interval: For blocked categories, in particular, the interval between the last study trial and the final induction test was longer in the spaced than in the contiguous condition (this was not the case in the interleaved condition, in which all species were studied at both the beginning and end of the session).”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As in the case of the results obtained by Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005), described earlier, the present results illustrate that two desirable difficulties are not always more desirable than one.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) source
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Appleton-Knapp et al. reasoned that studyphase retrieval processes are crucial in supporting long-term retention:”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present research, similarities within butterfly species (as illustrated in Fig. 3) may have been relatively easy to process, even during interleaved practice.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When spacing interfered with discrimination processes, it impaired inductive learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
Not yet classified.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The numbers of between-category juxtapositions were the same for both spacing conditions.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Owing to such reminders, retrieval between trials should be better in the blocked than in the interleaved condition, so some forgetting would likely be valuable in the former condition.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the large-spacing condition, exemplars of a given species were juxtaposed next to exemplars of only three other species, in order to match the number of between-category juxtapositions that occurred in the small-spacing condition.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Zulkiply and Burt (in press) found that blocking was more effective for learning highly discriminable categories, whereas interleaving was critical for inducing learning of low-discriminability categories.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zulkiply and Burt (in press)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Taylor and Rohrer found that interleaving enhanced learning-as measured by the ability to solve new examples of each type of problem on a delayed test-even when the amount of spacing had been the same in the interleaved and blocked conditions.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Taylor and Rohrer (2010) source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bottom line is that interleaving is valuable for inductive learning, and that spacing can be valuable, too, if it does not interfere with discriminative contrast.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Also, Exp. 1 had been designed to avoid such a confounding problem.)”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Temporal spacing is a natural consequence of interleaving, but the present results suggest that spacing can have both benefits and costs in inductive learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, an informal analysis of the previous experiments that showed a benefit for blocking indicates that the materials and procedures employed made identifying similarities within categories more difficult, whichaccording to the present framework-should result in blocking being more advantageous.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This manipulation allowed us to examine the effects of varying temporal spacing while holding juxtaposition, time on task, and time until test constant across all conditions.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Experiment 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Blocked practice may have, as the authors suggested, led to the”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Taylor and Rohrer (2010) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, they found it difficult to recognize and remember commonalities within a given species, with their performance suffering accordingly.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of the Experiment 1 and 2 results, we attributed the value of interleaving to enhanced discrimination processing, but the value may actually come from multiple sources.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two items from the same category (e.g., two Tippers) contain similar information and share the same category label, and thus, spacing would be expected to enhance learning in the blocked condition.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: When the same information is presented twice, spacing enhances learning, but no spacing effect occurs when two separate pieces of information are presented.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results obtained in the present research suggest that, to a great extent, the reason why interleaving enhances inductive learning is that the juxtaposing of exemplars of different categories that interleaving affords promotes the learning of differences.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This set of findings can be seen as supporting the hypothesis that it is important to promote the processing of similarities within a category as well as of differences between categories.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spacing does not have to interfere with discriminative contrast, however.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Practical implications
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to remember that, as compared to blocking, interleaving increases the amount of spacing between exemplars, and, as is demonstrated by the results of Experiment 3, increases in spacing may play some role in the value of interleaving for inductive learning.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, two items from different categories contain far less similar information (and have different labels); thus, there would be little reason to expect a benefit of temporal spacing in the interleaved condition.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > Results and discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: When the same information is presented twice, spacing enhances learning, but no spacing effect occurs when two separate pieces of information are presented.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If so, any advantage of blocking for noting similarities may have been unneeded-only making an already easy process easier-whereas interleaving helped with the more difficult process of discriminating among species.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the present findings lend strong support to the discriminativecontrast hypothesis, suggesting that interleaving is valuable in inductive learning because it allows people to grasp the differences between categories.”
§ Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval > General discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Interleaving is the superior condition for inductive learning.
“Assuming, therefore, that interleaving is the superior condition for inductive learning, a question remains unanswered: When all items are contiguously interleaved, is more spacing better than less?”
The paper relies on this without support.
When the same information is presented twice, spacing enhances learning, but no spacing effect occurs when two separate pieces of information are presented.
“A second reason why the two claims are consistent is that when the same information is presented twice (as with repetition learning), spacing enhances learning, but no spacing effect occurs when two separate pieces of information are presented.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.
“When people learn natural categories via induction, it is important to learn both the similarities among exemplars within a category and the differences between categories.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the adopted framework, blocking facilitates within-category similarity processing, while interleaving facilitates between-category difference processing.
“In the conceptual framework that we have adopted, blocking facilitates processing of similarities within a category, whereas interleaving facilitates processing of differences between categories.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These studies concluded that spacing is not the cause of the effect”
From A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Birnbaum et al., 2013
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“spacing the items out-a feature which leads to improved learning in most situations-appears to be harmful to interleaving.”
From A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Birnbaum et al., 2013
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, interleaving has now come to be distinguished from the spacing effect.”
From A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Birnbaum et al., 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, as revealed by some of the studies reviewed (Kang and Pashler, 2012;Birnbaum et al., 2013), a gradual approach to presenting examples can be beneficial as long as contrast is maintained, allowing spacing and interleaving to work in concert (Birnbaum, 2013).”
From A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Birnbaum et al., 2013
In the citing paper
“In addition, participants learned about characters in an interleaved fashion, which is thought to be beneficial for generalization by increasing between-category discriminability 24,25.”
From Contingency of semantic generalization on episodic specificity varies across development (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
Cites
Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 · Cited by 1,888
(1994) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4561.001.0001 · Cited by 1,770
Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings
Bjork, R. A. (1994) · Metacognition · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4561.003.0011 · Cited by 1,084
Self-citationLearning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the “Enemy of Induction”?
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x · Cited by 602
Self-citationComponent-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition
Glenberg, A. M. (1979) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197590 · Cited by 444
The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research.
Dempster, F. N. (1988) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.43.8.627 · Cited by 439
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90266-2 · Cited by 352
The effects of interleaved practice
Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1598 · Cited by 288
Learning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast
Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1801 · Cited by 246
Metacognition in motor learning.
Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.4.907 · Cited by 217
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615569000 · Cited by 651
“A currently active issue, however, is whether the benefits of interleaving go beyond the benefits of the spacing such interleaving introduces (see, e.g., Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork, 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSpaced Repetition Promotes Efficient and Effective Learning: Policy Implications for Instruction
Kang, S. H. K. (2016) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/2372732215624708 · Cited by 408
Teaching the science of learning
Weinstein, Y., Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y · Cited by 288
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0371-0 · Cited by 175
“The results showed that only the interleaved condition resulted in better performance than did the blocked condition, thus providing evidence that greater temporal spacing of presentations is not the critical factor for the interleaved advantage (but see Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000177 · Cited by 152
Self-citationThe Benefits of Multilingualism to the Personal and Professional Development of Residents of the US
Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2017) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/flan.12271 · Cited by 163
Kirk-Johnson, A., Galla, B. M., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2019) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101237 · Cited by 175
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Burgess, K. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0588-3 · Cited by 122
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, É. (2013) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800090-8.00004-4 · Cited by 122
Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework
de Bruin, A. B. H., Biwer, F., Hui, L., Onan, E., David, L., & Wiradhany, W. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09766-w · Cited by 109
“For example, learners improve their retention in category learning when they interleave rather than block the order of their study materials (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Brunmair & Richter, 2019).”
BackgroundApplication and Exploration of Big Data Mining in Clinical Medicine
Zhang, Y., Guo, S., Han, L., & Li, T. (2016) · Chinese Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/0366-6999.178019 · Cited by 74
“[14] were devoted to studying the relationship between interleaving and inductive learning.”
BackgroundCarvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00505 · Cited by 78
“…have been shown for different kinds of stimuli and different types of tasks with diverse populations (Taylor and Rohrer, 2010; Wahlheim et al., 2011; Kang and Pashler, 2012; Zulkiply et al., 2012; Birnbaum et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013; Zulkiply and Burt, 2013; Carvalho and Goldstone, 2014b).”
BackgroundInfluentialMetacognition in Upper-Division Biology Students: Awareness Does Not Always Lead to Control
Dye, K. M., & Stanton, J. D. (2017) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.16-09-0286 · Cited by 75
“For example, students believed that studying one concept over a long period of time (blocking) was more beneficial than alternating the study of more than one concept (interleaving) (Birnbaum et al. , 2013).”
BackgroundInterleaved presentation benefits science category learning.
Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. K. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.005 · Cited by 72
Foster, N. L., Mueller, M. L., Was, C., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2019) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-019-00918-4 · Cited by 67
Task repetition for language learning
DEKEYSER, R. M. (2018) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.11.01dek · Cited by 70
Vlach, H. A. (2014) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/cdep.12079 · Cited by 66
Carpenter, S. K., Endres, T., & Hui, L. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09562-w · Cited by 80
Oh, S., So, H., & Gaydos, M. J. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2017.2750673 · Cited by 67
“Interactions at different distances or with different materials serve as a method to enhance inductive learning [31], [32].”
MethodA systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy
Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. (2021) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3266 · Cited by 65
Richler, J. J., & Palmeri, T. J. (2013) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1268 · Cited by 73
People mind wander more during massed than spaced inductive learning.
Metcalfe, J., & Xu, J. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000216 · Cited by 62
Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12581 · Cited by 71
Spacing Simultaneously Promotes Multiple Forms of Learning in Children's Science Curriculum
Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2997 · Cited by 57
Contingency of semantic generalization on episodic specificity varies across development
Ngo, C. T., Benear, S. L., Popal, H., Olson, I. R., & Newcombe, N. S. (2021) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.088 · Cited by 53
“In addition, participants learned about characters in an interleaved fashion, which is thought to be beneficial for generalization by increasing between-category discriminability.(24,25) Perhaps the interleaving dampened adults’ memories for specific item-context pairs as a cost of promoting generalization.”
BackgroundInterleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics
Samani, J., & Pan, S. C. (2021) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-021-00110-x · Cited by 64
Learners and Luddites in the Twenty-first Century
Martinelli, S. M., Isaak, R. S., Schell, R. M., Mitchell, J., McEvoy, M. D., & Chen, F. (2019) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000002827 · Cited by 57
Effects of Variation and Prior Knowledge on Abstract Concept Learning
Braithwaite, D. W., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2015.1067215 · Cited by 60
How to optimize knowledge construction in the brain
van Kesteren, M. T. R., & Meeter, M. (2020) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-020-0064-y · Cited by 59
“This is arguably one of the reasons why spacing 91 and interleaving 92 of topics over time have pronounced effects on memory performance 93 .”
BackgroundEffects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00936 · Cited by 61
“ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE published: 22 August 2014 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00936 Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMaddox, G. B. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2016.1181637 · Cited by 54
Adams, D., Simpson, K., & Keen, D. (2018) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.07.003 · Cited by 50
Goldstone, R. L., Kersten, A. W., & Carvalho, P. F. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn308 · Cited by 51
“Consistent with this idea, Birnbaum et al. (2013) showed that while introducing a temporal delay between successive presentations of different categories hindered learning and transfer, increasing the temporal delay between successive presentations of items of the same category improved it (see…”
ResultOptimal sequencing during category learning: Testing a dual-learning systems perspective
Noh, S. M., Yan, V. X., Bjork, R. A., & Maddox, W. T. (2016) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.007 · Cited by 48
Self-citationLipowsky, F. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-61403-7_4 · Cited by 63
Testing prepares students to learn better: The forward effect of testing in category learning.
Lee, H. S., & Ahn, D. (2017) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000211 · Cited by 45
Unifying practice schedules in the timescales of motor learning and performance
Verhoeven, F. M., & Newell, K. M. (2018) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2018.04.004 · Cited by 42
Hoof, T. J. V., & Doyle, T. J. (2018) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1425546 · Cited by 39
“While the authors were unable to find any examples of interleaving in the CE/CPD literature, Birnbaum et al. (2013) demonstrated that juxtaposing (i.e. interleaving) different categories in a biology lesson was a superior method of learning compared to blocked (massed) practice of these same…”
BackgroundTransfer: A Review for Biology and the Life Sciences
Kaminske, A. N., Kuepper-Tetzel, C. E., Nebel, C. L., Sumeracki, M. A., & Ryan, S. P. (2020) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.19-11-0227 · Cited by 52
“This discriminative contrasting allows students to obtain a deeper understanding of the material (Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSpacing Effects on Learning and Memory ☆
Carpenter, S. K. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.21054-7 · Cited by 52
Building integrated representations through interleaved learning.
Zhou, Z., Singh, D., Tandoc, M. C., & Schapiro, A. C. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001415 · Cited by 35
Onan, E., Wiradhany, W., Biwer, F., Janssen, E. M., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09692-3 · Cited by 35
“Several studies showed that over 60% of the students judged blocked practice to be a more effective strategy than interleaved practice, even though interleaved practice enhanced their category learning more than blocked practice (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kornell et al., 2010; Zulkiply et al., 2012).”
BackgroundLuijkx, K. G., van Boekel, L. C., Janssen, M. M., Verbiest, M. E. A., & Stoop, A. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17239014 · Cited by 35
“Furthermore, our meetings are interactive with the use of creative work forms, based on to the assumption that knowledge is more easily incorporated when offered through various approaches [54].”
BackgroundTorre, D. M., & Schuwirth, L. (2024) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2409936 · Cited by 36
“By interleaving different exem-plars, learners w better compare and contrast these differences, thereby promoting a deeper understanding of the categories [51].”
Mixing topics while studying does not enhance learning.
Hausman, H., & Kornell, N. (2014) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.003 · Cited by 33
“These results have been explained by the discriminative contrast hypothesis, which states that juxtaposing exemplars from similar concepts or categories helps people learn by highlighting the differences that distinguish among the concepts or categories (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Wahlheim et al., 20…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationMacaluso, J. A., Beuford, R. R., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2022) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence10040083 · Cited by 35
Equal spacing and expanding schedules in children’s categorization and generalization
Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Bjork, R. A. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.004 · Cited by 29
Self-citationWhen Does Interleaving Practice Improve Learning?
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108235631.017 · Cited by 35
An In Vivo Study of Self-Regulated Study Sequencing in Introductory Psychology Courses
Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., de Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152115 · Cited by 32
“These results contrast with previous studies that have found superior learning from interleaved study [7,8,10,14,37,38,44].”
ResultDoes working memory capacity moderate the interleaving benefit?
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., Kim, J. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2018) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.005 · Cited by 27
Self-citationUsing Evidence-Based Learning Strategies to Improve Medical Education
Madan, C. R. (2023) · Medical Science Educator · doi:10.1007/s40670-023-01798-9 · Cited by 26
“Moreover, through alternating between topics, content is often learned at a deeper level and a greater understanding of the relationship between concepts is achieved [11].”
BackgroundLinderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B. (2016) · Advances in Physiology Education · doi:10.1152/advan.00157.2015 · Cited by 26
“We selected an interleaving text presentation format due to research that shows that it has benefits for higher-order thinking (2, 27, 31, 34).”
Nemeth, L., Werker, K., Arend, J., & Lipowsky, F. (2020) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101354 · Cited by 32
Nemeth, L., Werker, K., Arend, J., Vogel, S. T., & Lipowsky, F. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00086 · Cited by 33
“Hence, interleaving subtraction strategies as categories with a high level of similarity can encourage students to draw comparisons and to discover differences between the strategies (Richland et al., 2007; Rohrer and Taylor, 2007; Birnbaum et al., 2013; Dunlosky et al., 2013; Lipowsky et al., 2015).”
BackgroundPumilia, C. A., Lessans, S., & Harris, D. (2020) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.10372 · Cited by 24
Lucariello, J. M., Nastasi, B. K., Anderman, E. M., Dwyer, C. A., Ormiston, H. E., & Skiba, R. J. (2016) · Mind Brain and Education · doi:10.1111/mbe.12099 · Cited by 28
“…to rehearse and transfer skills or content by practicing with tasks that are similar to the target task or using several methods for the same task (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Hatala, Brooks, & Norman, 2003; Helsdingen, van Gog, & van Merrienboer, 2011; Kornell & Bjork, 2008; Rohrer, 2009; Taylor &…”
MethodLongitudinal assessments in continuing specialty certification and lifelong learning
Price, D. W., Swanson, D. B., Irons, M., & Hawkins, R. E. (2018) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1471202 · Cited by 23
“Interleaving related but distinct content during study can lead to improved knowledge retention compared to block study of similar content (Birnbaum et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2014).”
BackgroundThe advantage of mixing examples in inductive learning: a comparison of three hypotheses
Guzman-Munoz, F. J. (2017) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2015.1127331 · Cited by 22
“This study-phase retrieval account also received support from the previously described study by Birnbaum et al. (2013).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEffects of inductive learning and gamification on news veracity discernment.
Modirrousta-Galian, A., Higham, P. A., & Seabrooke, T. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000458 · Cited by 36
The Relative Merits of Explicit and Implicit Learning of Contrasted Algebra Principles
Ziegler, E., Edelsbrunner, P. A., & Stern, E. (2017) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9424-4 · Cited by 25
“Presenting concepts simultaneously and interleaved thus appears to lead to similar results, both offering the opportunity for implicit comparison of the concepts, which is considered to facilitate discrimination between the concepts (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Carvalho & Goldstone, 2014).”
ResultInoue, N., Aldosari, M., Park, S. E., & Ohyama, H. (2021) · European Journal Of Dental Education · doi:10.1111/eje.12713 · Cited by 23
Blocking Vs. Interleaving: Examining Single-Session Effects Within Middle School Math Homework
Ostrow, K., Heffernan, N., Heffernan, C., & Peterson, Z. (2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_34 · Cited by 23
“The benefits observed when interleaving mathematics content are often credited to the discriminative-contrast hypothesis [1], which purports that the effect is rooted in a student’s enhanced ability to pinpoint differences in problem content.”
BackgroundThe easy-to-hard training advantage with real-world medical images
Roads, B. D., Xu, B., Robinson, J. K., & Tanaka, J. W. (2018) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-018-0131-6 · Cited by 22
Long-term motor learning: Effects of varied and specific practice
Willey, C. R., & Liu, Z. (2017) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2017.03.012 · Cited by 21
Sio, U. N., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0684-x · Cited by 21
Blocking as a friend of induction in verbal category learning
Sorensen, L. J., & Woltz, D. J. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0615-x · Cited by 20
“However, as others have found in studies involving both verbal- and motor-skill learning (e.g., Birnbaum et al., 2013; D. A. Simon & Bjork, 2001; Zechmeister & Shaughnessy, 1980), interleaved study conditions typically result in better learning, even as participants’ subjective judgments suggest…”
BackgroundMethodMastering Electrocardiogram Interpretation Skills Through a Perceptual and Adaptive Learning Module
Krasne, S., Stevens, C. D., Kellman, P. J., & Niemann, J. T. (2020) · AEM Education and Training · doi:10.1002/aet2.10454 · Cited by 20
Monteiro, S., Melvin, L., Manolakos, J. J., Patel, A., & Norman, G. R. (2017) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0365-x · Cited by 19
“showed that interleaved practice led to improved performance on butterfly categorization compared with blocked practice, but only for students who received massed instruction [19].”
BackgroundModel-based fMRI reveals dissimilarity processes underlying base rate neglect
O’Bryan, S. R., Worthy, D. A., Livesey, E. J., & Davis, T. H. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.36395 · Cited by 20
“Early studies on the role of order and blocking on IBRE are similar to current work on blocked versus interleaved learning in the broader categorization literature (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Carvalho and Goldstone, 2014, Carvalho and Goldstone, 2015; Goldwater et al., 2018).”
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0081 · Cited by 22
Self-citationManipulation of cognitive load variables and impact on auscultation test performance
Chen, R., Grierson, L., & Norman, G. R. (2014) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-014-9573-x · Cited by 22
Doolittle, P. E., & Byrnes, M. K. (2023) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119852865.ch3 · Cited by 20
Is spacing really the “friend of induction�
Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Bouwmeester, S. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00259 · Cited by 18
“…that data from web-based samples, consisting of unsupervised and completely anonymous participants, can yield data comparable to those collected in the psychological laboratory (e.g., Germine et al., 2012; Zwaan and Pecher, 2012; Birnbaum et al., 2013; Crump et al., 2013; Goodman et al., 2013).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialCollege student normative misperceptions of peer study habit use
Anthenien, A. M., Delozier, S., Neighbors, C., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017) · Social Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s11218-017-9412-z · Cited by 20
Yan, V. X., & Sana, F. (2021) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000470 · Cited by 17
Transforming fear into rigor, love, freedom, and joy: A new paradigm of standards-based reform
Zusho, A., Kumar, R., & Bondie, R. S. (2023) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2023.2250879 · Cited by 22
“In addition, learning that promotes schema development whereby students grow to understand the underlying principles or rules that differentiate certain types of problems and content is much more effective in promoting transfer (Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
BackgroundAbel, R., de Bruin, A. B. H., Onan, E., & Roelle, J. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09902-0 · Cited by 21
“One explanation for these benefits of interleaving is the discriminative contrast hypothesis (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012).”
Sequential Mastery of Multiple Visual Tasks: Networks Naturally Learn to Learn and Forget to Forget
Davidson, G., & Mozer, M. C. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00930 · Cited by 22
“The durability of memory with distributed, interleaved practice is one of the most well studied phenomena in cognitive psychology [35, 33, 34, 49] and perceptual learning [50], helping human learners distinguish between categories, presumably by helping distinguish within-and between-category…”
BackgroundTranslating the learning sciences into practice: A primer for clinical and translational educators
Norman, M. K., & Lotrecchiano, G. R. (2021) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2021.840 · Cited by 24
“A related area of research is on “retrieval practice,” also called the testing effect [177,178,180,181].”
BackgroundTemporal dynamics of categorization: forgetting as the basis of abstraction and generalization
Vlach, H. A., & Kalish, C. W. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01021 · Cited by 21
“This body of work has revealed that spacing category exemplar presentations across time promotes categorization and generalization at a delayed test (e.g., Vlach et al., 2008, 2012; Birnbaum et al., 2013), as does interleaving non-category members between target category exemplar presentations (e.”
BackgroundInfluentialA Framework for Applying the Learning Sciences to MOOC Design
Gordon, D. G., & Wiltrout, M. E. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.500481 · Cited by 16
“The assessments that compose the PSs reference objectives covered throughout the associated learning sequence(s), and as such represent both spaced retrieval and interleaving practices (Karpicke and Roediger, 2007; Roediger and Butler, 2011; Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
BackgroundVisual category learning: Navigating the intersection of rules and similarity
Hughes, G. I., & Thomas, A. K. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01838-0 · Cited by 17
“Evidence favors the discriminative-contrast over the spacing hypothesis (Guzman-Munoz, 2017; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Mitchell, Nash, & Hall, 2008; Zulkiply & Burt, 2013a; but see Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialImproving Human‐Machine Cooperative Classification Via Cognitive Theories of Similarity
Roads, B. D., & Mozer, M. C. (2016) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12400 · Cited by 16
Medical Student Performance After a Vertically Integrated Radiology Clerkship
Tigges, S., Lewis, P. J., McNulty, N. J., & Mullins, M. E. (2015) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.019 · Cited by 15
“70 [15-19].”
The effects of binge-watching and spacing on learning L2 multi-word units from captioned TV series
Pattemore, A., & Muñoz, C. (2023) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2023.2211614 · Cited by 21
A Computational Model of Context‐Dependent Encodings During Category Learning
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2022) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13128 · Cited by 19
“Although typically described in the context of memory tasks, the spacing effect has also been shown in the context of category learning (e.g, Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
BackgroundThe most efficient sequence of study depends on the type of test
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3740 · Cited by 14
“izing how one sequence improves learning (as discrimination theories do; e.g., Kornell & Bjork, 2008; Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012), one understands how learning is shaped by sequence”
BackgroundLo, S. M., Luu, T. B., & Tran, J. (2020) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881 · Cited by 15
Sun, Y., Shi, A., Zhao, W., Yang, Y., Li, B., Hu, X., Shanks, D. R., Yang, C., & Luo, L. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09666-5 · Cited by 14
“For instance, the effect has been documented on learning of artists’ painting styles (Kang & Pashler, 2012; Metcalfe & Xu, 2016); species of butterflies, birds, and penguins (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kornell & Vaughn, 2018); mathematical and statistical concepts (Foster et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialUsing Interleaving to Promote Inductive Learning in Educational Contexts
Richter, T., Nemeth, L., Berger, R., Ferri, R. B., Hänze, M., & Lipowsky, F. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie · doi:10.1026/0049-8637/a000260 · Cited by 16
Learning melodic musical intervals: To block or to interleave?
Wong, S. S. H., Chen, S., & Lim, S. W. H. (2020) · Psychology of Music · doi:10.1177/0305735620922595 · Cited by 15
Rottman, B. M., Caddick, Z. A., Nokes‐Malach, T. J., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2023) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-023-00496-9 · Cited by 15
“This approach draws on advances in cognitive psychology (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2014; Cepeda et al., 2006; Dempster, 1988; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Roe-diger & Butler, 2011), including spaced learning and the testing effect, as well as upon recent advances in internet-based testing…”
BackgroundImproving encoding strategies as a function of test knowledge and experience
Storm, B. C., Rivers, M. L., & Bjork, E. L. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0588-9 · Cited by 13
Self-citationKornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2018) · Archives of Scientific Psychology · doi:10.1037/arc0000042 · Cited by 20
“Similar results have been obtained in subsequent studies (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Carvalho & Goldstone, 2014; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Kornell, Castel, Eich, & Bjork, 2010; McCabe, 2011; Noh, Yan, Vendetti, Castel, & Bjork, 2014; Rohrer et al., 2014; Yan, Bjork, & Bjork, 2016; Zulkiply & Burt, 2013).”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationThe synergistic benefits of systematic and random interleaving for second language grammar learning.
Pan, S. C., Lovelett, J. T., Phun, V., & Rickard, T. C. (2019) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.07.004 · Cited by 12
A neural marker of medical visual expertise: implications for training
Rourke, L., Cruikshank, L. C., Shapke, L., & Singhal, A. (2016) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-016-9712-7 · Cited by 12
A Review of the Interleaving Effect: Theories and Lessons for Future ResearchPreprint
Yan, V. X., Schuetze, B. A., & Eglington, L. G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ur6g7 · Cited by 15
Adaptively selecting biology questions generated from a semantic network
Zhang, L., & VanLehn, K. A. (2016) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2016.1190939 · Cited by 12
“This is sometimes called “ discrimination drill ” in the concept formation and inductive learning literature, which has thoroughly investigated non-adaptive task orderings (e.g. Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork, 2013; Große & Renkl, 2003).”
BackgroundMOCA-Peds: Development of a New Assessment of Medical Knowledge for Continuing Certification
Leslie, L. K., Olmsted, M. G., Turner, A. L., Carraccio, C. L., Dwyer, A. C., & Althouse, L. A. (2018) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2018-1428 · Cited by 12
Learning Music Composers’ Styles: To Block or to Interleave?
Wong, S. S. H., Low, A. C. M., Kang, S. H. K., & Lim, S. W. H. (2020) · Journal of Research in Music Education · doi:10.1177/0022429420908312 · Cited by 16
“…interleaving in enhancing the learning of music composers’ styles and extends the benefits of interleaving to the auditory modality and domain of musical listening beyond visual stimuli that have been the focus of past research on category induction (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kornell & Bjork, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Williams College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Birnbaum, Monica S.
- Venue
- Memory & Cognition
- Published
- 2012-11-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 392-402
- ISSN
- 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5946
- OpenAlex
- W2084769389
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 4.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- interleaving, inductive learning, temporal spacing, category discrimination, retrieval, exemplar-based learning, concept learning
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Concept Formation, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Middle Aged, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
