Literature DB >> 32959192

Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs.

Tina Seabrooke1, Chris J Mitchell2, Andy J Wills2, Timothy J Hollins2.   

Abstract

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.

Keywords:  Learning; Memory; Pretesting; Testing

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32959192     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  8 in total

1.  Discrimination learning with and without "errors".

Authors:  H S TERRACE
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1963-01       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Teaching machines; from the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self instruction.

Authors:  B F SKINNER
Journal:  Science       Date:  1958-10-24       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention.

Authors:  Henry L Roediger; Jeffrey D Karpicke
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-03

4.  When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study.

Authors:  Matthew Jensen Hays; Nate Kornell; Robert A Bjork
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence intervals for ANOVA.

Authors:  Thom Baguley
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2012-03

6.  Selective effects of errorful generation on recognition memory: the role of motivation and surprise.

Authors:  Tina Seabrooke; Chris J Mitchell; Andy J Wills; Jessica L Waters; Timothy J Hollins
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2019-08-01

Review 7.  Learning from Errors.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 24.137

8.  Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning.

Authors:  Nate Kornell; Matthew Jensen Hays; Robert A Bjork
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.051

  8 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Predicting as a learning strategy.

Authors:  Garvin Brod
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-03-25

2.  The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect.

Authors:  Tina Seabrooke; Chris J Mitchell; Andy J Wills; Angus B Inkster; Timothy J Hollins
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-08-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.