In continuous recognition memory, the lag function is inverted U-shaped after a short retention interval and monotonically increasing after a long retention interval¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 1979 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Glenberg's (1976) continuous recognition paradigm, recognition of old items was an inverted U-shaped function of lag at short retention intervals and monotonically increasing at long retention intervals, as predicted by cue-bias differences. → Glenberg 1979

Evidence¶

Glenberg 1979¶

Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7(2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197590

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The article reviews Glenberg's (1976) continuous recognition memory experiment, in which lag between the first two presentations was factorially combined with retention interval. The review reports that "the probability of eorreet1y reeognizing an old item" showed the predicted shapes. No effect sizes are printed.

"As predieted, the probability of eorreet1y reeognizing an old item was an inverted U-shaped funetion of lag when tested after a short retention interval, and a monotonically inereasing funetion of lag when tested after a long retention interval."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• The optimal interstudy interval increases as the retention interval increases — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Spaced Practice Improves Retention — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Recent research identifies time intervals during which spaced study should occur to maximize memory retention — 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
• Recall of between-lists repeated words matched two-independent-representations predictions at short retention intervals but exceeded independence after long retention intervals — related
• 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
• ISI effects on recall are nonmonotonic and depend jointly on retention interval — related