ISI effects on recall are nonmonotonic and depend jointly on retention interval¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? At a 1-day retention interval, performance increased as ISI difference rose from 1-15 min to 1 day, and qualitative evidence suggests performance drops when ISI difference increases beyond 1 day. → Cepeda 2006

Evidence¶

Cepeda 2006¶

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Accuracy difference lag analysis (Table 3): at 1-day retention interval, longer ISI of 1 day beat 1-15 min by 17.5% vs. 6.4%, t(16) = 2.7, p < .05; the same pattern appeared at 2-28 day retention intervals, t(26) = 2.4, p < .05.

"for a 1-day retention interval, performance significantly increased as ISI difference increased from 1-15 min to 1 day. Qualitatively, one study suggested that performance should drop when ISI difference increases beyond 1 day"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Expanding interstudy intervals led to better recall than fixed intervals, but conclusions are tentative — related
• The optimal interstudy interval increases as the retention interval increases — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Spaced presentations produce markedly better final recall than massed presentations across retention intervals — related
• Relearning-to-criterion designs confound distribution of practice with amount of second-session practice — related
• The testing effect is largest at a retention interval of 1–6 days (g = 0.82) and robust across all intervals — related
• In paired-associate paradigms, the lag function is decreasing at very short retention intervals, inverted U-shaped at slightly longer intervals, and monotonically increasing at long intervals — related
• The spacing benefit holds even at very short retention intervals, contradicting the Peterson paradox — 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
• The meaning of theoretical arrows (causal vs predictive, timescale, functional form, magnitude) is unclear, and cross-lagged effect signs can change with assessment intervals — related
• Earlier studies reported that quicker recall accompanied better memory results, but with little supporting evidence — related