Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: Dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1787-1794

  Lehman, Melissa ^a   Smith, Megan A ^a   Karpicke, Jeffrey D ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Elaboration; Memory; Proactive interference; Retrieval; Testing

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; EPISODIC MEMORY; HUMAN; LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; RECALL; SEMANTICS;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LEARNING; MEMORY, EPISODIC; MENTAL RECALL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84925661701     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000012     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bäuml, K.-H. T., & Kliegl, O. (2013). The critical role of retrieval processes in release from proactive interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 39-53. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.006
2. Brewer, G. A., Marsh, R. L., Meeks, J. T., Clark-Foos, A., & Hicks, J. L. (2010). The effects of free recall testing on subsequent source memory. Memory, 18, 385-393. doi:10.1080/09658211003702163
3. 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
4. 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
5. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34, 268-276. doi:10.3758/BF03193405
6. Chan, J. C. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). The testing effect in recognition memory: A dual process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 431-437. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.431
7. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. 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:Advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63-147). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003-2
8. Greene, R. L. (1989). Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a twoprocess account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 371-377. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.371
9. Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (2002). A distributed representation of temporal context. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 269-299. doi:10.1006/jmps.2001.1388
10. Jang, Y., & Huber, D. E. (2008). Context retrieval and context change in free recall: Recalling from long-term memory drives list isolation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 112-127. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.112
11. Kang, S. H. K. (2010). Enhancing visuospatial learning: The benefit of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1009-1017. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1009
12. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011, February 11). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772-775. doi:10.1126/science.1199327
13. Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (in press). Retrieval-based learning: A temporal context account. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 60). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
14. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (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
15. Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 17-29. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.004
16. Karpicke, J. D., & Zaromb, F. M. (2010). Retrieval mode distinguishes the testing effect from the generation effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 227-239. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.010
17. Lehman, M., & Malmberg, K. J. (2013). A buffer model of encoding and temporal correlations in retrieval. Psychological Review, 120, 155-189. doi:10.1037/a0030851
18. Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2005). The "one-shot" hypothesis for context storage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 322-336. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.322
19. McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. J. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 371-385.
20. Mensink, G. J. M., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1989). A model for contextual fluctuation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 172-186. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(89)90029-1
21. Nairne, J. S. (2002). The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory, 10, 389-395. doi:10.1080/09658210244000216
22. 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
23. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010, October 15). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335. doi:10.1126/science.1191465
24. Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2003). Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: Application of the SAM model. Cognitive Science, 27, 431-452. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2703_5
25. 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
26. Roediger, H. L., & Thorpe, L. A. (1978). The role of recall time in producing hypermnesia. Memory & Cognition, 6, 296-305. doi:10.3758/BF03197459
27. Sahakyan, L., & Hendricks, H. E. (2012). Context change and retrieval difficulty in the list-before-the-last paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 40, 844-860. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0198-0
28. Surprenant, A. M., & Neath, I. (2009). Principles of memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
29. Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1392-1399. doi:10.1037/a0013082
30. Underwood, B. J. (1972). Are we overloading memory? In A. W. Melton and E. Martin (Eds.), Coding processes in human memory (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: Winston.
31. Verkoeijen, P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K., & Verhage, M. L. (2011). Comparing the effects of testing and restudying on recollection in recognition memory. Experimental Psychology, 58, 490-498. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000117
32. Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 442-452. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.1.4.442
33. Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (1993). Proactive interference and the dynamics of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1024-1039. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1024