Distributing and Managing the Conditions of Encoding and Practice

Dempster, Frank N.

doi:10.1016/b978-012102570-0/50011-2

Cited by 185 publications

(174 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is encouraging to know that the effect is not limited to memory tasks that require writing, typing, or speaking a verbal response aloud, as have been used in many of the past studies on this topic (see, e.g., Dempster, 1996). The map-learning task differs from other tasks involving nonverbal components-for example, face-name learning-for which testing effects have been demonstrated in past studies (e.g., Carpenter & DeLosh, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

Carpenter

Pashler

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

120

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

Carpenter

Pashler

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

120

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the spacing effect has been demonstrated in a vast number of studies (e.g., Challis, 1993;Greene, 1989Greene, , 1990Greene & Stillwell, 1995;Hintzman & Block, 1973;Hintzman, Summers, & Block, 1975;Russo, Parkin, Taylor, & Wilks, 1998) it has largely defied a unitary explanation (for reviews on proposed theoretical mechanisms see Crowder, 1976;Dempster, 1996;Hintzman, 1974Hintzman, , 1976Kintsch, 1970). For instance, different mechanisms are proposed to account for spacing effects in cued memory tasks and in free recall.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental Influence of Contextual Change on Spacing Effects in Free Recall.

Verkoeijen

Rikers

Schmidt

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were conducted to determine the mechanism underlying the spacing effect in free-recall tasks. Participants were required to study a list containing once-presented words as well as massed and spaced repetitions. In both experiments, presentation background at repetition was manipulated. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated that free recall was higher for massed items repeated in a different context than for massed items repeated in the same context, whereas free recall for spaced items was higher when repeated in the same context. Furthermore, a spacing effect was shown for words repeated in the same context, whereas an attenuated spacing effect was revealed for words repeated in a different context. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 under a different presentation background manipulation. Both experiments seem to be most consistent with a model that combines the contextual variability and the study-phase retrieval mechanism to account for the spacing effect in free-recall tasks.The term spacing effect refers to the phenomenon that repeated items induce better recollection if both occurrences are separated by time or other targets (i.e., spaced presentation), compared with a situation in which repetitions occur in immediate succession (i.e., massed presentation). Although the spacing effect has been demonstrated in a vast number of studies (e.g

show abstract

“…Despite the lack of theoretical agreement, the spacing effect is a remarkably robust phenomenon that has been demonstrated in an unusually wide variety of circumstances (see Dempster, 1996, for a review). Given the relative ubiquity of the phenomenon, any set of conditions in which the spacing effect is reliably attenuated may offer an opportunity to gain fresh theoretical insights.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although no explanation of the spacing effect has gained general acceptance (Dempster, 1996), most accounts fall into one of three categories depending on the type of mechanism that is assumed to produce the effect. 1 According to deficient-processing theories (e.g., Challis, 1993;Jacoby, 1978;Shaughnessy, Zimmerman, & Underwood, 1972), the spacing effect results from inadequate processing of massed repetitions relative to spaced repetitions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%