Between-list lag effects in recall depend on retention interval

Abstract

Although the benefits of spaced retrieval for long-term retention are well established, the majority of this work has involved spacing over relatively short intervals (on the order of seconds or minutes). In the present experiments, we evaluated the effectiveness of spaced retrieval across relatively short intervals (within a single session), as compared to longer intervals (between sessions spaced a day apart), for long-term retention (i.e., one day or one week). Across a series of seven experiments, participants (N = 536) learned paired associates to a criterion of 70 % accuracy and then received one test–feedback trial for each item. The test–feedback trial occurred within 10 min of reaching criterion (short lag) or one day later (long lag). Then, a final test occurred one day (Exps. 13) or one week (Exps. 4 and 5) after the test–feedback trial. Across the different materials and methods in Experiments 13, we found little benefit for the long-lag relative to the short-lag schedule in final recall performance—that is, no lag effect—but large effects on the retention of information from the test–feedback to the final test phase. The results from the experiments with the one-week retention interval (Exps. 4 and 5) indicated a benefit of the long-lag schedule on final recall performance (a lag effect), as well as on retention. This research shows that even when the benefits of lag are eliminated at a (relatively long) one-day retention interval, the lag effect reemerges after a one-week retention interval. The results are interpreted within an extension of the bifurcation model to the spacing effect.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The number of participants randomly assigned to each group was unexpectedly different in this experiment. Importantly, this was not due to differential attrition in each group since all participants had to return after a one week retention interval. Rather, it was because random assignment by the program assigned more participants to some groups than to others.

  2. 2.

    Because feedback was provided in the present experiments the results may have also reflected the contribution of test-potentiated learning (Arnold & McDermott, 2013a, 2013b; Izawa, 1966) when the spacing lag between original learning and the test–feedback phase was one day and the retention interval was one day. See Table 1 for the relevant comparisons that meet this criterion (24-h lag, 24-h retention interval). All experiments produced higher recall on the final test than on the test given 24 h previously (during the test–feedback practice phase), which was not observed in the short-lag conditions. Thus, the restudy after a test in the long-lag condition during the test–feedback practice phase provided a large boost to performance, which not only eliminated the expected forgetting over this one-day retention interval, but may have actually potentiated learning by showing an improvement. However, we refrain from favoring this explanation, because we did not have the proper control condition to demonstrate test-potentiated learning. Another difficulty in ascribing test-potentiated learning as a mechanism is that the initial learning phase in the present experiments was not a pure study phase, but instead an intermixed sequence of studying and testing (to criterion); this sequence occurred prior to the test–restudy sequence. Hence, the present design did not allow us to isolate the influence of test-potentiated learning, although this mechanism may have contributed to the observed patterns. Future research will be needed to pinpoint our improved recall after 24 h in the long-lag condition to test-potentiated learning.

References

  1. Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013a). Free recall enhances subsequent learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 507–513. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0370-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013b). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940–945. doi:10.1037/a0029199

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4, 316–321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00571.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Paullin, R. (1989). Age-related differences in the impact of spacing, lag and retention interval. Psychology and Aging, 4, 3–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). Does expanded retrieval produce benefits over equal-interval spacing? Explorations of spacing effects in healthy aging and early stage Alzheimer’s disease. Psychology and Aging, 21, 19–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effect in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19, 1095–1102.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cull, W. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 63–147). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College. Original work published 1885.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8, 528–538. doi:10.3758/BF03213772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goverover, Y., Basso, M., Wood, H., Chiaravalloti, N., & DeLuca, J. (2011). Examining the benefits of combining two learning strategies on recall of functional information in persons with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 17, 1488–1497.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Greene, R. L. (2008). Repetition and spacing effects. In H. L. Roediger (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (Cognitive psychology of memory, Vol. 2, pp. 65–78). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Halamish, V., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 801–812.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 126–134. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0181-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Izawa, C. (1966). Reinforcement-test sequences in paired-associate learning. Psychological Reports, 18, 879–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karpicke, J. D., & Bauernschmidt, A. (2011). Spaced retrieval: Absolute spacing enhances learning regardless of relative spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1250–1257. doi:10.1037/a0023436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. doi:10.1080/09658210802647009

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224. doi:10.3758/BF03194055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 498–503.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., & Erdfelder, E. (2012). Encoding, maintenance, and retrieval processes in the lag effect: A multinomial processing tree analysis. Memory, 20, 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Landauer, T. K., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 625–632). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Litman, L. & Davachi, L. (2008). Distributed learning enhances relational memory consolidation. Learning and Memory, 15, 711–716.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Maddox, G. B., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Self control of when and how much to test face–name pairs in a novel spaced retrieval paradigm: An examination of age-related differences. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19, 620–643. doi:10.1080/13825585.2011.640658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Madigan, S. A. (1969). Intraserial repetition and coding processes in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 828–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Melton, A. W. (1967). Repetition and retrieval from memory. Science, 158, 532. doi:10.1126/science.158.3800.532-b

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Melton, A. W. (1970). The situation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peterson, L. R., Wampler, R., Kirkpatrick, M., & Saltzman, D. (1963). Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 206–209. doi:10.1037/h0046694

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 437–447. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pyc, M. A., Balota, D. A., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2014). Is There a Benefit of a 24 Hour Spacing Interval? No After a Day, Yes After a Week. Manuscript in preparation.

  36. Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283–302. doi:10.1037/a0023956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 70–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Robbins, D., & Bush, C. T. (1973). Memory in great apes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 15, 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sargis, E. G., Skitka, L. J., & McKeever, W. (2013). The Internet as psychological laboratory revisited: Best practices, challenges, and solutions. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behavior (2nd ed., pp. 253–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Simone, P. M., Bell, M. C., & Cepeda, N. J. (2012). Diminished but not forgotten: Effects of aging on magnitude of spacing effect benefits. Journals of Gerontology, 68B, 674–680. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs096

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 763–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Toppino, T. C., Fearnow-Kenney, M. D., Kiepert, M. H., & Teremula, A. C. (2009). The spacing effect in intentional and incidental free recall by children and adults: Limits on the automaticity hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 37, 316–325. doi:10.3758/MC.37.3.316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tully, T., Preat, T., Boynton, S. C., & Del Vecchio, M. (1994). Genetic dissection of consolidated memory in Drosophila. Cell, 79, 35–47.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20, 568–579.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 80–84. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00480.x

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S., & Reynolds, J. R. (2007). Event perception: A mind/brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 273–293. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author note

Supported by a grant from Dart Neuroscience, LLC. We thank David Blinn, Nicole McKay, John Slochower, Alexandra Taylor, and Teresa Yao for assistance with data collection and scoring.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary A. Pyc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pyc, M.A., Balota, D.A., McDermott, K.B. et al. Between-list lag effects in recall depend on retention interval. Mem Cogn 42, 965–977 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0406-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Memory
  • Recall
  • Spacing effects
  • Lag effects