Do testing effects change over time? Insights from immediate and delayed retrieval speed

Abstract

Retrieving information from memory improves recall accuracy more than continued studying, but this testing effect often only becomes visible over time. In contrast, the present study documents testing effects on recall speed both immediately after practice and after a delay. Forty participants learned the translation of 100 Swahili words and then further restudied the words with translations or retrieved the translations from memory during testing. As in previous experiments, recall accuracy was higher for restudied words than for tested words immediately after practice, but higher for tested words after seven days.Response times for correct answers, however, showed a different result: Learners were faster to recall tested words than restudied words both immediately after practice and after seven days. These results are interpreted in light of recent suggestions that testing selectively strengthens cue-response associations. An additional outcome was that testing effects on recall accuracy were related to perceived retrieval success during practice. When several practice retrievals were successful, testing effects on recall accuracy were significant already immediately after practice. Together with the reaction time data, this supports recent models that attribute changes in testing effects over time to limited item retrievability during practice.

Neurocognitive mechanisms of the “testing effect”: A review

“…Indeed, VLPFC activity on a final test one day after combined restudying/practicetesting was lower the more often items had been successfully tested during prior practice [30], possibly reflecting that prior testing made the retrieval on the final test less demanding and reduced the need for competitor suppression. Behavioral reports of faster reaction times at the final test for previously tested compared to previously restudied items further support this interpretation [28,32,43].…”

“…Restudying led to better immediate results but practice-testing led to better results on the delayed final tests. This is a common finding in testing effect studies, which often show that the benefits of practice-tests are stronger when the final test is given after a delay rather than immediately after practice (for further information see [43,[50][51][52][53]). …”

Contextual Richness and Word Learning: Context Enhances Comprehension but Retrieval Enhances Retention

“…Alternatively, retrieval attempts might lead to a more thorough inspection of available cues, such as word form. In any case, studies on test‐potentiated learning suggest that the retrieval condition could be beneficial even in the absence of extensive prior training because learners may benefit from retrieval attempts even when the retrieval fails, as long as corrective feedback is available (Rowland & DeLosh, ; van den Broek et al., ). In the present study, we did not distinguish the indirect effects of retrieval on feedback processing from the effects of the retrieval itself, but the mechanisms of feedback processing could be interesting for follow‐up research.…”

“…It is possible that the uninformative context triggered the retrieval of (aspects of) word meaning from memory. After a single exposure, this retrieval likely failed; however, after seven exposures to a word, learners might have gained some word knowledge, such that uninformative sentences could trigger successful retrieval and thus produce a testing effect (Kornell, Bjork, & Garcia, 2011;van den Broek, Segers, Takashima, & Verhoeven, 2014).…”

Effects of successive relearning on recall: Does relearning override the effects of initial learning criterion?

“…First key-press latencies reflect in part the amount of time that participants have spent attempting to retrieve the answer, with the plausible assumption being that the more difficult and effortful a particular item is to retrieve, the more time participants will need in order to retrieve (so as to begin typing) the correct response. First key-press latencies (and other closely related reaction time measures) have been used previously as a proxy for retrieval effort (including in the original article proposing the REH; see, e.g., Buckner, Koutstaal, Schacter, Wagner, & Rosen, 1998;Pyc & Rawson, 2009;van den Broek, Segers, Takashima, & Verhoeven, 2014;Wixted & Rohrer, 1993). Although retrieval effort may be influenced by a variety of factors (e.g., differences in practice lag, retention interval, or the type of prior practice), the predictions stemming from the REH are the same regardless of why retrieval effort varied.…”