When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 505-513

  Grimaldi, Phillip J ^a   Karpicke, Jeffrey D ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Memory; Retrieval processes; Semantic memory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; RECALL; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; CUES; HUMANS; LEARNING; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84864419966     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Arndt, J., & Jones, T. C. (2008). Elaborative processing and conjunction errors in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 36, 899-912. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 36. 5. 899.
2. Barnes, J. M., & Underwood, B. J. (1959). "Fate" of first-list associations in transfer theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 97-105. doi: 10. 1037/h0047507.
3. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123-144). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
4. Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563-1569. doi: 10. 1037/a0017021.
5. Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547-1552. doi: 10. 1037/a0024140.
6. Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633-642. doi: 10. 3758/BF03202713.
7. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 82. 6. 407.
8. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-67. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 91. 1. 1.
9. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 93. 4. 411.
10. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 95. 4. 528.
11. Izawa, C. (1970). Optimal potentiating effects and forgetting-prevention effects of tests in paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 340-344. doi: 10. 1037/h0028541.
12. Kang, S. H. K., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Carpenter, S. K., & Mozer, M. C. (2011). Does incorrect guessing impair fact learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 48-59. doi: 10. 1037/a0021977.
13. Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138, 469-486. doi: 10. 1037/a0017341.
14. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772-775. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1199327.
15. Karpicke, J. D., & Cross, K. M. (2011). Effects of cue generation and retrieval practice on complex learning. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University.
16. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151-162. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2006. 09. 004.
17. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966-968. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1152408.
18. Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989-998. doi: 10. 1037/a0015729.
19. Mäntylä, T. (1986). Optimizing cue effectiveness: Recall of 500 and 600 incidentally learned words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 66-71. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 12. 1. 66.
20. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 114, 159-188. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 114. 2. 159.
21. McNamara, T. P. (1992). Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1173-1190. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 18. 6. 1173.
22. Mensink, G.-J., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1988). A model for interference and forgetting. Psychological Review, 95, 434-455. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 95. 4. 434.
23. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Available at http://w3. usf. edu/FreeAssociation/.
24. Pastötter, B., Schicker, S., Niedernhuber, J., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2011). Retrieval during learning facilitates subsequent memory encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 287-297. doi: 10. 1037/a0021801.
25. 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.
26. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1191465.
27. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-134. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 88. 2. 93.
28. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
29. Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 15, 243-257. doi: 10. 1037/a0016496.
30. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 45-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Slamecka, N. J., & Fevreiski, J. (1983). The generation effect when generation fails. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 153-163. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(83)90112-3.
32. Soraci, S. A., Franks, J. J., Bransford, J. D., Chechile, R. A., Belli, R. F., Carr, M., & Carlin, M. (1994). Incongruous item generation effects: A multiple-cue perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 67-78. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 20. 1. 67.
33. Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2011). The interim test effect: Testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1140-1147.