Skip to main content
Log in

The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on how information should be studied during inductive category learning has identified both interleaving of categories and blocking by category as beneficial for learning. Previous work suggests that this mixed evidence can be reconciled by taking into account within- and between-category similarity relations. In this article, we present a new moderating factor. Across two experiments, one group of participants studied categories actively (by studying the objects without correct category assignment and actively figuring out what the category was), either interleaved or blocked. Another group studied the same categories passively (objects and correct category assignment were simultaneously provided). Results from a subsequent generalization task show that whether interleaved or blocked study results in better learning depends on whether study is active or passive. One account of these results is that different presentation sequences and tasks promote different patterns of attention to stimulus components. Passive learning and blocking promote attending to commonalities within categories, while active learning and interleaving promote attending to differences between categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 442–481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, F. G., Queller, S., & Berretty, P. M. (1999). On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(6), 1178–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, D. W., Carvalho, P. F., de Leeuw, J., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R.L. (2014) Effectiveness of learner-regulated study sequence. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 671–682.

  • Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Putting category learning in order: category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 481–495.

  • Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2004). Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: A comparison of inference learning and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 216–226.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 608–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. J., & Ross, B. H. (2011). Comparisons in category learning: How best to compare for? In L. Carlson, C. Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1388–1393). Austin: Cogntive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, K. H., & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592–613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 356–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, P. G., Goldstone, R. L., & Thibaut, J. P. (1998). The development of features in object concepts. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(1), 1–17. Discussion 17–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, F. A. & Wasserman, E.A. (2010) Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: A common-elements model. Psychological Review, 117(2), 349–381.

  • Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 750–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, J. R., & Garner, W. R. (1963). Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. (1997). Prototypes, Exemplars, and Object Recognition. New Haven: Yale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, A. C.-N., Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2009). Conditions for face-like expertise with objects: Becoming a Ziggerin expert – but which type? Psychological Science, 20(9), 1108–1117.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776–795.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation REESE grant 0910218 and Department of Education IES grant R305A1100060. P.F.C. was also supported by Graduate Training Fellowship SFRH/BD/78083/2011 from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), co-sponsored by the European Social Found. The authors would like to thank the Percepts and Concepts Lab members for discussion and Spenser Benge, Abigail Kost, Alifya Saify, and Shivani Vasudeva for their assistance with data collection. The authors are also thankful to Bob McMurray and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript. “Freeble” stimuli images are courtesy of Michael J. Tarr, Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition and Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, http://www.tarrlab.org/. “Ziggerin” stimuli images are courtesy of Alan Wong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, http://ww2.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/~mael/Stimuli.html.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo F. Carvalho.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 189 KB)

ESM 2

(PDF 38.1 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carvalho, P.F., Goldstone, R.L. The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 281–288 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0676-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0676-4

Keywords

Navigation