Literature DB >> 9438957

Revising current two-process accounts of spacing effects in memory.

R Russo1, A J Parkin, S R Taylor, J Wilks.   

Abstract

Memory for repeated items improves when presentations are spaced during study. In Experiment 1A, words were repeated either immediately or after 6 intervening items. Intentional learning occurred under either focused or divided attention. Retention was tested by either free recall or yes-no recognition. Divided attention did not affect the influence of spacing in free recall, whereas it removed the spacing effect in recognition. In Experiment 1B, recognition memory was tested after incidental semantic study of words performed under either focused or divided attention. An equivalent spacing effect occurred in both attentional conditions. In Experiments 2 and 3, recognition memory for unfamiliar faces was assessed. A reliable spacing effect was found under both intentional learning and incidental structural study. These data are, collectively, incompatible with current theories of spacing effects. A theoretical proposal to account for these new findings is outlined.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9438957     DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.24.1.161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  8 in total

1.  Spacing effects in cued-memory tasks for unfamiliar faces and nonwords.

Authors:  Nicola Mammarella; Riccardo Russo; S E Avons
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-12

2.  Brain regions and functional interactions supporting early word recognition in the face of input variability.

Authors:  Silvia Benavides-Varela; Roma Siugzdaite; David Maximiliano Gómez; Francesco Macagno; Luigi Cattarossi; Jacques Mehler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Level of initial training moderates the effects of distributing practice over multiple days with expanding, contracting, and uniform schedules: Evidence for study-phase retrieval.

Authors:  Thomas C Toppino; Heather-Anne Phelan; Emilie Gerbier
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-08

4.  Auditory Training for Adults Who Have Hearing Loss: A Comparison of Spaced Versus Massed Practice Schedules.

Authors:  Nancy Tye-Murray; Brent Spehar; Joe Barcroft; Mitchell Sommers
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Spaced learning enhances subsequent recognition memory by reducing neural repetition suppression.

Authors:  Gui Xue; Leilei Mei; Chuansheng Chen; Zhong-Lin Lu; Russell Poldrack; Qi Dong
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 6.  What makes distributed practice effective?

Authors:  Aaron S Benjamin; Jonathan Tullis
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Facilitating memory for novel characters by reducing neural repetition suppression in the left fusiform cortex.

Authors:  Gui Xue; Leilei Mei; Chuansheng Chen; Zhong-Lin Lu; Russell A Poldrack; Qi Dong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The spacing effect in intentional and incidental free recall by children and adults: Limits on the automaticity hypothesis.

Authors:  Thomas C Toppino; Melodie D Fearnow-Kenney; Marissa H Kiepert; Amanda C Teremula
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.