Claims

The optimal spacing interval is bounded by reactive inhibition at short intervals and skill deterioration at long intervals

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q1 i? Very short inter-training intervals suffer reactive inhibition while very long intervals cause skill deterioration and forgetting, suggesting an inverted U-curve relation between spacing interval and skill acquisition. → Fahl Jan Torge 2023

Evidence

Fahl Jan Torge 2023

Fahl Jan Torge, Duvivier Robbert, Reinke Laurens, Pierie Jean-Pierre E. N., Schönrock-Adema Johanna. (2023). Towards best practice in developing motor skills: a systematic review on spacing in VR simulator-based psychomotor training for surgical novices. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04046-1

q1 · i? · review · r3

Theoretical argument in the review's discussion, drawing on Smith et al.'s suggested inverted U-curve between spacing interval and skill acquisition. This is the authors' interpretive account, not a tested result of the review itself.

"Reactive inhibition negatively impacts the effectiveness of massed or distributed training using short (e.g., 15 minutes) inter-training intervals. At the same time, longer inter-training intervals (e.g., 14 days) result in skill deterioration, forgetting and ineffective training"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.