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
Items 101–200 of 261
Retrieval Practices Enhance Computational and Scientific Thinking Skills
Yaşar, O., Maliekal, J. A., Veronesi, P. D., Little, L., Meise, M., & Yeter, I. H. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.892276 · Cited by 14
“…directly measure the impact of SIM-based generative retrieval on basic reasoning skills (i.e., inductive and deductive thinking), recent reviews by Birnbaum et al. (2013); Brunmair and Richter (2019), and Firth et al. (2021) cite that interleaving retrieval practices improve inductive learning—a…”
BackgroundResultStudy preferences for exemplar variability in self-regulated category learning
Wahlheim, C. N., & DeSoto, K. A. (2016) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2016.1152378 · Cited by 14
Online self‐study of chest X‐rays shows no difference between blocked and mixed practice
Shah, R., Sibbald, M., Jaffer, N. M., Probyn, L. J., & Cavalcanti, R. B. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12991 · Cited by 12
Onan, E., Biwer, F., Wiradhany, W., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2024) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101942 · Cited by 14
Task switching, multitasking, and errors: a psychologic perspective on the impact of interruptions
Sherbino, J., & Norman, G. (2021) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.07.120 · Cited by 11
Not just stimuli structure: Sequencing effects in category learning vary by task demands.
Yan, V. X., & Schuetze, B. A. (2021) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.09.004 · Cited by 15
Walters, L., & Brooks, K. D. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13118 · Cited by 12
Barra, W. N., Wilujeng, İ., & Kuswanto, H. (2019) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1233/1/012046 · Cited by 11
“Practical implication of this study is through inductive learning students are encouraged to be able to differentiate problem categories from numerous available cases [21].”
BackgroundMore isn’t always better: when metacognitive prompts are misleading
Vangsness, L., & Young, M. E. (2020) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-020-09241-9 · Cited by 12
The Robustness of the Interleaving Benefit
Yan, V. X., & Sana, F. (2021) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.05.002 · Cited by 25
The Influence of Presentation Order on Category Transfer
Mathy, F., & Feldman, J. (2016) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000312 · Cited by 11
“…of the first category of the to-be-learned 5-4 category structure preceded the four examples of the second category (i.e., learning was massed; see Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork, 2013; Carvalho & Goldstone, 2014; Kornell & Bjork, 2008; Kornell, Castel, Eich, & Bjork, 2010; Kang & Pashler,…”
BackgroundWard, R. C., Baker, K. A., Spence, D., Leonard, C. M., Sapp, A., & Choudhry, S. A. (2023) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/01632787231164381 · Cited by 10
Quantum Computing, Math, and Physics (QCaMP): Introducing Quantum Computing in High Schools
Ivory, M., Bettale, A., Boren, R., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.20318 · Cited by 10
Coppens, L. C., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Bouwmeester, S., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2016) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0127-2 · Cited by 10
“Also, evidence is accumulating that cognitive psychological findings translate readily from the psychological laboratory to the online Mechanical Turk platform (e.g., [19 – 23]).”
The benefit of interleaved presentation in category learning is independent of working memory
Wang, J., Liu, Z., Xing, Q., & Seger, C. A. (2020) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2019.1705490 · Cited by 10
Interleaved Design for E-Learning: Theory, Design, and Empirical Findings
Li, A. T., De, L., Xu, S. X., & Cheng, Y. (2024) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2023/17206 · Cited by 14
“Furthermore, when topics are highly related, there is also a greater need to compare and contrast them, which can help learners fix misconceptions about a particular topic and develop a more robust and nuanced understanding of different topics (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Carvalho & Goldstone, 2014).”
Metacognitive changes and sources of confidence judgements in health professions classroom learning
Persky, A. M., & Dinsmore, D. L. (2019) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2019.01.005 · Cited by 10
Pine, R., Morenga, L. T., Olson, M., & Fleming, T. M. (2021) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076211047802 · Cited by 8
“33 An example of interleaving and spacing psychological well-being skills within Match Emoji is ‘ Sometimes taking a slow breath can help chill us out ’ .”
BackgroundPan, S. C., Flores, S. R., Kaku, M. E., & Lai, W. H. E. (2024) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102045 · Cited by 11
Language and Reading Research Consortium (2016) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/684827 · Cited by 9
Adaptive compression as a unifying framework for episodic and semantic memory
Nagy, D., Orbán, G., & Wu, C. M. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-025-00458-6 · Cited by 12
“…to interleaved curricula in different settings, especially when generalization between stimuli was beneficial to the performance of the task 70 , or in discrimination tasks where the immediate juxtaposition of exemplars from different classes seems to highlight the differences between them 71–73 .”
A Systematic Review of Interleaving as a Concept Learning Strategy
Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. (2019) · Social Science Protocols · doi:10.7565/ssp.2019.2650 · Cited by 8
Longitudinal Interleaved Residency Training: A Consensus Definition
Zeller, T. A., Beben, K., Kong, M., Martonffy, I. A., Patterson, S., Deas, W., Heo, M., & Keister, D. M. (2023) · Family Medicine · doi:10.22454/fammed.2023.378423 · Cited by 8
Study Smarter: Applying the Science of Learning to Radiology
Tung, E. L., & Matalon, S. A. (2023) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.04.026 · Cited by 8
Pan, S. C., Yu, L., Hong, Y., Wong, M. J., Selvarajan, G., & Kaku, M. E. (2024) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102603 · Cited by 8
Kang, Y., Ha, H., & Lee, H. S. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09772-y · Cited by 7
“Also, they may realize that noticing similarities among exemplars within categories is not sufficient for successful classification and that they need to identify differ‐ ences that distinguish one category from another (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012), resulting in strategy change in subsequent learning.”
BackgroundNemeth, L., & Lipowsky, F. (2023) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-023-00723-3 · Cited by 14
“One theoretical explanation for this advantage is the discriminative-contrast hypothesis, which states that inter-leaved practice activates discrimination and comparison processes (Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
Metacognitive Illusion in Category Learning: Contributions of Processing Fluency and Beliefs
Wang, J., & Xing, Q. (2019) · Advances in Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.5709/acp-0260-3 · Cited by 9
“This is consistent with existing studies (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Kornell & Bjork,2008; Kornell et al., 2010).”
MethodResultInfluentialUsing interleaved practice to foster spelling acquisition
Klimovich, M., & Richter, T. (2025) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102146 · Cited by 7
Abel, R., Niedling, L. M., & Hänze, M. (2020) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3761 · Cited by 8
Ge, Y., Li, F., Li, X., & Li, W. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.770885 · Cited by 8
Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-016-0028-1 · Cited by 8
Firth, J. (2020) · Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy · doi:10.1080/02607476.2020.1829965 · Cited by 9
“presented side-by-side without intervening delays (Birnbaum et al. 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialA computational model of context-dependent encodings during category learningPreprint
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8psa4 · Cited by 7
The relationship between interleaving and variability effects: a cognitive load theory perspective
Chen, O., Retnowati, E., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13111138 · Cited by 11
Ha, H., & Lee, H. S. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09899-6 · Cited by 6
“Butterfly images were initially created by Birnbaum et al. (2013), and some of the images were replaced with those found in the Korean Encyclopedia of But-terflies to adjust for the difficulty of the learning materials.”
Self-Testing and Follow-Through of Learning Strategies Supports Student Success
Hazlett, Z. S., Jimenez, P. C., & Knight, J. (2025) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.24-04-0128 · Cited by 9
“In addition, when a new study strategy feels difficult, learners tend to rate it as ineffective and not continue using it, even when the new strategy is demonstrably more effective (Cepeda et al. , 2006; Roediger and Karpicke, 2006b; Birnbaum et al. , 2013).”
Auditory category learning is robust across training regimes
Obasih, C. O., Luthra, S., Dick, F., & Holt, L. L. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105467 · Cited by 9
“For example, interleaved exemplar presentation of the to-be-learned categories (e.g., ABCACBBAC) specifically benefits learning and/or generalization compared to blocked exemplar presentation (e.g., AAABBBCCC; Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork, 2013; Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Kornell & Bjork, 2008; M…”
Clayton, L. M., Wells, M., Alter, S. M., Solano, J. J., Hughes, P. G., & Shih, R. D. (2024) · Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open · doi:10.1002/emp2.13223 · Cited by 8
Unveiling the Art of Effective Learning through Spaced Repetition and Evidence-Based Techniques
Narkhede, K., Patil, R., Kasat, A., Gawas, A., & More, P. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Communications (InC4) · doi:10.1109/inc460750.2024.10649261 · Cited by 6
“Although there haven't been many controlled studies in this area, research by Micallef et al.[18] in the field of higher education suggests that utilising tangible examples to improve understanding of abstract concepts may be beneficial.”
BackgroundA systematic review of progress test as longitudinal assessment in Saudi Arabia
Moursy, N., Hamsho, K., Gaber, A. M., Ikram, M. F., & Sajid, M. R. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-06671-4 · Cited by 6
Berens, S. C., & Bird, C. M. (2022) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010566 · Cited by 9
Interleaving Effects in Blindfolded Perceptual Learning Across Various Sensory Modalities
Abel, R. (2023) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13270 · Cited by 8
The Underappreciated Benefits of Interleaving for Category Learning
Do, L. A., & Thomas, A. K. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11080153 · Cited by 14
The Complexities of Learning Categories Through Comparisons
Higgins, E. J. (2016) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.002 · Cited by 7
de Bruin, A. B. H., Sibbald, M., & Monteiro, S. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119373780.ch3 · Cited by 7
Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L., III (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn106 · Cited by 7
The role of variable retrieval in effective learning
Butowska, E., Kliś, P., Zawadzka, K., & Hanczakowski, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2413511121 · Cited by 9
“However, previous investigations of a simultaneous use of learning strategies that come under the umbrella term of desirable difficulties have often found the benefits of combining those strategies to be subad-ditive ( 51 ).”
BackgroundTeachers’ Beliefs about Memory: A Vignette Study of Trainee and In-Service Teachers
Firth, J. (2021) · Studia Psychologica · doi:10.31577/sp.2021.02.821 · Cited by 5
From the classroom to the game: applying available pedagogical guidelines in game-based learning
Bartolomé, P. S., & Gerven, T. V. (2022) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon52537.2022.9766475 · Cited by 5
“It has been shown to provide significant improvements in learning, both on the short and long term [40], [41].”
BackgroundKueser, J. B., Peters, R. E., & Borovsky, A. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105565 · Cited by 5
An order-dependent transfer model in categorization
Mezzadri, G., Reynaud-Bouret, P., Laloë, T., & Mathy, F. (2022) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2021.102634 · Cited by 5
“…study or dissimilarity-based vs. similarity-based orders, has been largely proven to impact the way we learn and represent categories as well (Birnbaum et al., 2012; Carvalho & B. Albuquerque, 2012; Carvalho & Gold-585 stone, 2014b, 2015a; Carpenter & Mueller, 2013; de Zilva & Mitchell,…”
BackgroundChained study and the discovery of relational structure
Markant, D. B. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01201-1 · Cited by 5
Little, J. L., & Nepangue, J. A. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15050662 · Cited by 5
“In the case of visual information, the advantage of interleaving over blocking is often attributed to interleaving’s affordance for discrimination—the discriminative contrast hypothesis (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012).”
Effects of practice schedules in video tutorials for software training
van der Meij, H., & Nuketayeva, K. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104786 · Cited by 5
Explaining procedures and interleaving practice in fraction arithmetic
Braithwaite, D. W., & Hall, G. J. (2023) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101854 · Cited by 7
The optimal sequence for learning can depend on one's strategy: An individual differences approach
Little, J. L., Nepangue, J. A., & Longares, A. (2025) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102684 · Cited by 4
Luk, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108235631.013 · Cited by 5
Apply Small Teaching Tactics in an Introductory Programming Course: Impact on Learning Performance
Jiang, Y. (2022) · Journal of Information Systems Education · doi:10.62273/vifv7767 · Cited by 4
“…to practice how to select and apply the correct solutions for different types of problems and helps them develop a deeper understanding of the associated underlying principles and rules such that they are more capable of choosing the right solutions in unfamiliar situations (Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
Recall Efficacy in EFL Learning
Makarchuk, D. W. (2018) · English Teaching · doi:10.15858/engtea.73.2.201806.115 · Cited by 4
“With regard to students’ perceptions, Birnbaum et al. (2013) state that it has been shown that students often believe blocked learning to be superior to interleaved learning even when the results indicate the opposite.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the behavioral and neurocognitive relation between mind wandering and learning
Xu, J. (2018) · doi:10.7916/d88k8snf · Cited by 4
Introducing Desirable Difficulty in Engineering Mathematics with Spaced Retrieval Practice
Bego, C. R., Ralston, P. A. S., Lyle, K. B., & Immekus, J. C. (2024) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--37379 · Cited by 4
“, not studying in the same place every time [21]; interleaving [22]; spacing out study sessions over time [16]; and self-testing instead of rereading during study sessions [18], [23].”
BackgroundSana, F., Yan, V. X., & Carvalho, P. F. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09663-8 · Cited by 6
Interleaving in Mathematical Category Learning
Rowlandson, P., & Simpson, A. (2025) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.5951/jresematheduc-2024-0055 · Cited by 3
Montag, J. L., Marasli, Z. B., & Koch, K. M. (2026) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916261445341 · Cited by 4
Binks, S. (2026) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70349 · Cited by 7
A Metacognitive Instructional Guide to Support Effective Studying Strategies
Bingham, B. E., Coulter, C., Cottenie, K., & Jacobs, S. (2021) · The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2020.3.8318 · Cited by 3
Similarity-based Ordering of Instances for Efficient Concept Learning
Weitnauer, E., Carvalho, P. F., Goldstone, R. L., & Ritter, H. J. (2014) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 3
Teaching Residents to Teach: Why and How
Feimster, J. W., McDow, A. D., & Mellinger, J. D. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64728-9_7 · Cited by 4
Why do people overestimate the effectiveness of blocked learning?
Krasnoff, J., & Overkott, C. S. R. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02225-7 · Cited by 4
Interleaving Enhances Learning: A Possible Geometric Explanation
Lerma, O., Kosheleva, O. M., & Крейнович, В. (2014) · scholarworks - UTEP (The University of Texas at El Paso) · Cited by 3
Grouping by Similarity Helps Concept Learning
Weitnauer, E., Carvalho, P. F., Goldstone, R. L., & Ritter, H. J. (2013) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 4
Korte, S., Berger, R., & Hänze, M. (2017) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-017-9899-x · Cited by 3
Twelve Tips for Students in Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships
Pepper, J., Riegels, N. S., Ziv, T. A., & Mazotti, L. A. (2019) · MedEdPublish · doi:10.15694/mep.2019.000059.1 · Cited by 3
“Interleaving medical concepts across settings is thought to help students improve long-term memory (Weinstein, Madan and Sumeracki, 2018), faculty and staff relations (Dent, Harden and Hunt, 2017), inductive learning, and differentiation between similar problems types (Birnbaum et al. , 2013).”
BackgroundVisual Search for Letters in the Right Versus Left Visual Hemifields
Gorbunova, E. S., & Falikman, M. V. (2019) · Advances in Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.5709/acp-0258-5 · Cited by 3
Effects of Inductive Learning and Gamification on News Veracity DiscernmentPreprint
Modirrousta-Galian, A., Higham, P. A., & Seabrooke, T. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/4wfds · Cited by 3
Roelle, J., & Richter, T. (2025) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102277 · Cited by 8
Fralick, C. M., & Yan, V. X. (2025) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-025-09446-w · Cited by 2
“…& Pashler, 2012; Zulkiply & Burt, 2013; bird species, Kirk-Johnson et al., 2019, Macaluso et al., 2022; Wahlheim et al., 2012; butterfly species, Birnbaum et al., 2013), and educational and conceptual learning (e.g., mathematics, Ostrow et al., 2015, Taylor & Rohrer, 2010; statistics, Sana et…”
Germane processes moderate the effectiveness of complex desirable difficulty tasks
Zeitlhofer, I., & Zumbach, J. (2026) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-026-09807-1 · Cited by 3
Unterrichtsqualität und Instruktionsstrategien
Ufer, S., Heinze, A., & Lipowsky, F. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-66604-3_15 · Cited by 3
Educational Podcasts: Effect of Content Delivery Timing on Knowledge Acquisition and Retention
Gottlieb, M. A., Fung, C.-C., Haas, M. R. C., Cooney, R. R., King, A. M., & Riddell, J. (2024) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005722 · Cited by 6
Learning Relational Categories: Benefits of Blocking, Classification, and Subject-Specific Examples
Steininger, T. M., Wittwer, J., & Voss, T. (2024) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/14757257241248155 · Cited by 2
“Concerning blocked learning, this is in line with predictions of the discriminative contrast framework (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Kornell & Bjork, 2008) and can be attributed to the processes needed to accomplish different tasks: Generation tasks require focusing on commonalities…”
InfluentialAcquiring an Accurate Mental Model of Human Learning
Pan, S. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190917982.013.69 · Cited by 2
Self-citationTung, E. L., Shailam, R., Tung, M. G., & Barton, K. (2024) · Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology · doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.07.017 · Cited by 2
Howard‐Jones, P. A. (2014) · Cited by 2
Miyatsu, T., Nosofsky, R. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000240 · Cited by 1
Ferri, R. B., Pede, S., & Lipowsky, F. (2020) · Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik · doi:10.1007/s13138-020-00162-3 · Cited by 3
“Nach Birnbaum et al. (2013) sind verschachtelt Lernende demnach bei Anforderungen im Vorteil, welche das Unterscheiden von Lerninhalten erfordern.”
Background(2015) · Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · Cited by 2
Hints vs Distractions in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Looking for the proper type of helpPreprint
Blancas-Muñoz, M., Vouloutsi, V., Zucca, R., Mura, A., & Verschure, P. F. M. J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.07806 · Cited by 7
General knowledge and detailed memory benefit from different training sequencesPreprint
Noh, S. M., Bjork, R. A., & Preston, A. R. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qk9p2 · Cited by 2
“Our generalization results corroborate claims that interleaving facilitates the encoding of features that differentiate categories (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Carvalho & Goldstone, 2015; Kang & Pashler, 2012; Kornell & Bjork, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultSelf-citationBerens, S. C., & Bird, C. M. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.11.455977 · Cited by 2
“The particular learning conditions can have a large impact on how information is retained (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006) and generalises to new situations (Birnbaum et al., 2013).”
BackgroundStatistical inference for categorization models and presentation order
Mezzadri, G. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/f15c2ceez57e3z4cf6zba6aza54b10b0de9b · Cited by 3
Han, L., Xie, W., Li, P., Seger, C. A., & Liu, Z. (2025) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-025-01682-4 · Cited by 1
“For most category structures, interleaved presentation results in better learning (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kornell & Bjork, 2008), which is known as the interleaving effect (Foster et al., 2019).”
How note-taking and note-using affects the benefit of interleaving over blocking
Little, J. L., Fealy, J. C. M., Kobayashi, K., & Roth, S. (2025) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-025-01751-8 · Cited by 1
“Spacing, itself, likely does not explain the whole benefit shown by Kornell and Bjork (2008) because when Birnbaum et al. (2013) introduced extra spacing (i.e., by inserting trivia questions between items from different categories), the advantage of interleaving was reduced.”
InfluentialXiong, Y., & Wu, S. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105518 · Cited by 2
Enhancing human detection of real and hyperrealistic AI-generated faces
Seabrooke, T., Pattni, M., & Higham, P. A. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.109093 · Cited by 3
Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., de Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015) · Cognitive Science · Cited by 1
Blocked vs. interleaved presentation and proactive interference in episodic memory
Fabio Del Missier, A., Sassano, A., Coni, V., Salomonsson, M., & Mäntylä, T. (2017) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2017.1402937 · Cited by 1
“If considered in relation to the literature on blocking vs. interleaving in inductive concept learning (e.g., Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kornell & Bjork, 2008), the preference for opposite schedules in concept learning vs. episodic memory tasks (a blocked vs. an interleaved one) might eventually be…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA Multifaceted Consideration of Motivation and Learning within ASSISTments
Ostrow, K. (2015) · Digital WPI · Cited by 1
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
