The within-list distributed practice effect: Tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses

Maskarinec, Ann Stash; Thompson, Charles P.

doi:10.3758/bf03213242

Cited by 41 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Free recall, in which contextual components are the only available retrieval cues, should therefore result in a spacing effect. As predicted, the recall after DP was superior to the recall after MP in both the Maskarinec and Thompson (1976) and the Shaughnessy (1976) experiments.…”

Section: Contextual Componentsmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…After performing the orienting task, the subjects were unexpectedly asked for free recall. Maskarinec and Thompson (1976) reasoned that the traces formed in the different-task condition encode many descriptive components regardless of the repetition lag. That is, in order to perform the differentcondition orienting tasks, the subject must encode the same descriptive components when the presentations are massed as when they are distributed.…”

Section: Contextual Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Hintzman (1974), Maskarinec and Thompson (1976), and others have noted, what it is that is assumed to be variably encoded is dependent on specific forumlations of encoding variability. It has been proposed that the variability resides in the semantic interpretation of events (Bower, 1972;Madigan, 1969), the context in which the events are encoded (Medin,Note 1), and the subjective organization in which the events are embedded (Melton, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spacing repetitions generally facilitates memory for the repeated events. This article describes a theory of spacing effects that uses the same principles to account for both facilitatory and inhibitory effects of spacing in a number of memory paradigms. Increasing the spacing between repetitions is assumed to result in the storage of greater amounts of information of three types or levels: contextual, structural (associative), and descriptive. Contextual information is encoded automatically, while the encoding of the structural and descriptive information depends on control processes utilized. Remembering involves accessing the stored information using retrieval cues containing information on any level that matches the stored information. The ultimate effectiveness of the spacing is controlled by this matehing between the retrieval cues and the stored information. Previous experiments demonstrating the operation of these principles on the structural and descriptive levels are reviewed. Three new experiments are reported that illustrate interactions between stored information and retrieval cues based on contextual information.The effect of arepetition has always been of great importance to all theories of learning and memory. That performance improves with repetitions is one of the basic phenomena to be explained. Nonetheless, there is not an adequate explanation of when, how, or why repetitions are effective. No single-process theory, nor many multiprocess theories, can account for all, or even most, of the empirical findings. The goal of this article is to present a theoretical framework that integrates a number of different repetition-effect phenomena and that makes a variety of new predictions.Specifica11y, the theory is designed to account for distributed practice and spacing effects found with verbal stimuli in a majority of verbal learning and memory paradigms. The distributed practice effect refers to enhanced memory performance on repeated iterns whose presentations are distributed (either through time or through time and other presentations), as opposed to performance on items whose presentations are massed or contiguous. In addition, in many situations the amount of distribution is positively correlated with performance. As the spacing, or lag, between the presentations increases, performance genera11y shows a concomitant, negatively accelerated improvement (Melton, 1970). Distributed practice effects, in one sense, have been difficult to explain because of their ubiquity across both tasks and information processing strategies (Underwood,

show abstract

Section: Contextual Componentsmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Contextual Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If these are the causes of the lag effect, then having a different task at the second presentation should increase attention and processing (relative to the same task) and reduce the lag effect. Similarly, some encoding variability interpretations of the lag effect (e.g., Maskarinec & Thompson, 1976) predict that requiring different processing at the first and second presentations will produce equivalent encoding variability in the representations of words repeated at all lags. This equivalency should attenuate the lag effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spacing repetitions over 1 week

1980

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does varying the spacing of repetitions over intervals as long as I week affect recall? The answer from three experiments is yes. Subjects incidentally processed words repeated within a single list and words repeated in separate lists at list spacings of up to I week. Memory was tested by free recall shortly after the second presentations or after retention intervals of up to I week. Recall of the words repeated across separate lists conformed to a proportionality rule. When the retention interval is short relative to the spacing intervals, performance is inversely related to spacing. When the retention interval is a large proportion of the spacing intervals, performance is directly related to spacing. Does varying the spacing of repetitions within a single list affect recall after a retention interval of 2 weeks? The answer depends on the processing used while studying the words. Processing that generated interitem associations resulted in a within-list spacing effect even after a 2-week retention interval. Without the interitem associations, the effect was absent after a l-day retention interval. Most of these findings were explained by examining the changing relationship between the retrieval context and the context stored during study.As a general rule, as the spacing between the presentations of repeated information is increased, memory performance also increases. This phenomenon is called the spacing or lag effect. Although there has been considerable theoretical and empirical research on the spacing effect (for reviews, see Hintzman, 1974;Melton, 1970), using a variety of procedures, most of the interrepetition intervals investigated have been relatively modest. The spacings of the repetitions found in the vast majority of the studies range from 1 or 2 sec to a few minutes. The one exception of which we are aware is a study reported by Landauer and Ross (1977). They asked subjects to memorize a seven-digit telephone number over the course of a l-week interval by using their own methods (control group) or by briefly studying the number once or twice daily for 1 week (spaced practice group). Two weeks after receiving these instructions the control group had 61% perfect recalls and the spaced practice group had 73% perfect recalls of the number.The use of long spacing and test intervals has two important benefits. First, it allows us to look at the generality of the spacing effect under conditions approaching those of everyday life (at least in the time intervals, if not in the stimulus material). Second, it provides a fresh series of tests for theoretical explanations of the spacing effect. In the present series of The experiments reported in this paper were designed to answer two questions. First, will recall after extremely long spacings (spacings of I day or 1 week) conform to a proportionality rule that holds for recall after short spacings? The proportionality rule is that when the retention interval is short relative to the spacing of the repetitions, performance is negatively correlated with repetiti...

show abstract

“…It has been demonstrated with virtually every standard memory task from free recall to recognition (Hintzman, 1974), and occurs despite variation in task parameters such as rate and modality of presentation (e.g., Melton, 1970). The phenomenon is obtained in incidental learning conditions (e.g., Maskarinec & Thompson, 1976;Shaughnessy, 1976), as well as in intentional learning…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The spacing effect in free recall emerges with development

Toppino

DiGeorge

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, children were shown a series of pictures of common objects and were asked to free recall which pictured objects had been presented. Some pictures were presented twice, with repetitions being either massed or spaced apart. Results indicated that preschoolers benefited from repetition but that they recalled massed and spaced repetitions equally well. In contrast, first-graders produced the typical spacing effect by recalling spaced repetitions better than they did massed repetitions. This finding that the spacing effect in free recall emerges with development suggests that the phenomenon cannot be explained solely in terms of a primitive encoding mechanism that is hard-wired into the memory system. Rather, an adequate account must include processes that are acquired or that develop during childhood. Further discussion focuses on implications of our findings for specific theories of the spacing effect and for the direction of future research.

show abstract

The within-list distributed practice effect: Tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses

Cited by 41 publications

References 9 publications

Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition

Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition

Spacing repetitions over 1 week

The spacing effect in free recall emerges with development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About