The TTST advantage persists in a pure-list design, ruling out differential rehearsal (Experiment 4)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1992 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? When items were studied in pure lists rather than mixed lists, the TTST method still yielded higher cued recall, eliminating differential rehearsal as an explanation. → Carrier 1992

Evidence¶

Carrier 1992¶

Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202713

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Laboratory experiment with 60 undergraduates studying six five-item sublists, each presented entirely by pure ST or TTST in alternating study-test phases. Proportion correct was 0.71 for TTST versus 0.66 for pure ST; a sign test was reliable (z = 1.75, p < .05).

"presenting items using the TTST method resulted in a higher proportion correct on cued recall (0.71) than did the pure ST method (0.66) [F(1,59) == 7.76, p < .01]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The retrieval benefit occurs at the level of individual items, not through general practice at retrieval — related
• The TTST advantage persists when no further presentations follow the retrieval manipulation, ruling out encoding-effort strategies (Experiment 3) — related
• Retrieval before re-presentation (TTST) improves final cued recall of nonsense-syllable/number pairs relative to pure study (Experiment 1) — related
• The retrieval (TTST) advantage appeared at both short (5 min) and long (24 h) retention delays, with no reliable evidence that it differed between them — related
• The TTST advantage replicates with meaningful Eskimo/English word pairs (Experiment 2) — related