Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs
Open accessAbstract
Attempting to retrieve the answer to a question on an initial test can improve memory for that answer on a subsequent test, relative to an equivalent study period. Such retrieval attempts can be beneficial even when they are unsuccessful, although this benefit is usually only seen with related word pairs. Three experiments examined the effects of pretesting for both related (e.g., pond-frog) and unrelated (e.g., pillow-leaf) word pairs on cued recall and target recognition. Pretesting improved subsequent cued recall performance for related but not for unrelated word pairs, relative to simply studying the word pairs. Tests of target recognition, by contrast, revealed benefits of pretesting for memory of targets from both related and unrelated word pairs. These data challenge popular theories that suggest that the pretesting effect depends on partial activation of the target during the pretesting phase.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 retrieval attempt alone can promote learning of the correct answer.
“Nevertheless, the retrieval attempt alone can promote learning of the correct answer (Potts et al., 2019; Seabrooke et al., 2021).”
From Predicting as a learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Seabrooke et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
(2014) · Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.004 · Cited by 23,880 · see citing works
Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x · Cited by 2,867 · see citing works
The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195588 · Cited by 1,961 · see citing works
Skinner, B. F. (1958) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.128.3330.969 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
DISCRIMINATION LEARNING WITH AND WITHOUT “ERRORS”1
Terrace, H. S. (1963) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-1 · Cited by 726 · see citing works
Testing the testing effect in the classroom
McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007) · European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440701326154 · Cited by 563 · see citing works
Metcalfe, J. (2016) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022 · Cited by 548 · see citing works
Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning.
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0015729 · Cited by 484 · see citing works
(1992) · Cited by 464 · see citing works
Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence intervals for ANOVA
Baguley, T. S. (2011) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0123-7 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?
Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Making related errors facilitates learning, but learners do not know it
Huelser, B. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2012) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0167-z · Cited by 171 · see citing works
The benefit of generating errors during learning
Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0033194 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study.
Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0028468 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
How Retrieval Attempts Affect Learning
Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.03.003 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Knight, J. B., Ball, B. H., Brewer, G. A., Dewitt, M. R., & Marsh, R. L. (2012) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.008 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
The benefit of generating errors during learning: What is the locus of the effect?
Potts, R., Davies, G., & Shanks, D. R. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000637 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Skinner, B. F. (1959) · IRE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/te.1959.4322064 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Skinner, B. F. (1959) · IRE Transactions on Education · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Learning from failure: Errorful generation improves memory for items, not associations
Seabrooke, T., Hollins, T. J., Kent, C. D., Wills, A. J., & Mitchell, C. J. (2018) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.001 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationTwo routes to memory benefits of guessing.
Zawadzka, K., & Hanczakowski, M. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000676 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Selective effects of errorful generation on recognition memory: the role of motivation and surprise
Seabrooke, T., Mitchell, C. J., Wills, A. J., Waters, J. L., & Hollins, T. J. (2019) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2019.1647247 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationBader, L. J. (1984) · Group · doi:10.1007/bf01457248 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pan, S. C., & Carpenter, S. K. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09814-5 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Predicting as a learning strategy
Brod, G. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-021-01904-1 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- Authors
- Seabrooke, T., Mitchell, C. J., Wills, A. J., & Hollins, T. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- University of Plymouth (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Seabrooke, Tina
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2020-09-21
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 268-273
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2991511982
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 1.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N018702/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- pretesting effect, retrieval practice, cued recall, target recognition, word pair learning, memory enhancement, target activation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Association, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Recall, Recognition, Psychology, 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.
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
