Recall of between-lists repeated words matched two-independent-representations predictions at short retention intervals but exceeded independence after long retention intervals¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1980 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Predicted recalls under independence (.70, .56, .57 for 0-0, 1-0, 7-0) were almost exactly the same as observed immediate recall. → Glenberg 1980 q3 i? After a 7-day retention interval, observed recall was substantially higher than the independence predictions, significantly so in the 0-7 and 1-7 conditions [ts(15)=2.10 and 3.01] but not in 7-7 [t(15)=1.22]. → Glenberg 1980 (2)

Evidence¶

Glenberg 1980¶

Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 528-538. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213772

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Secondary analysis in Experiment 2 testing the independence equation P1 + P2 - P1P2 against observed recall, using once-presented words from each list as estimates of P1 and P2.

"Usingthese proportions, the predicted recalls were .70, .56, and .57 for the 0-0, l-O, and 7-0 conditions, respectively, almost exactly the same as the observed recall. Based on these data, it appearsthat the items repeated between the lists generate two inde­pendent representations."

Glenberg 1980 (2)¶

Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 528-538. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213772

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Statistical test of observed minus predicted proportions in Experiment 2's delayed conditions. The authors offer retrieval-based explanations, including a shift from two effective retrieval cues at short retention to one at long retention.

"The differences between observed and predicted proportions were then used to test the null hypothesis of no dif­ference. The hypothesis could be rejected for the 0-7 and 1-7 conditions [ts(15)=2.10 and 3.01, respec­tively]. For the 7-7 condition, the null hypothesis could not be rejected [t(15) =1.22]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Recall of words repeated across lists spaced up to 1 week follows a proportionality rule: recall is better after short spacing at short retention intervals but better after long spacing at long retention intervals — related
• In continuous recognition memory, the lag function is inverted U-shaped after a short retention interval and monotonically increasing after a long retention interval — related