The TTST advantage persists when no further presentations follow the retrieval manipulation, ruling out encoding-effort strategies (Experiment 3)¶

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? With the TTST versus pure ST manipulation on the last presentation only, TTST items were still recalled better, so differential encoding of later presentations cannot explain the effect. → 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 learning 30 Eskimo/English pairs whose first two presentations were pure ST for all items; the third presentation was TTST or pure ST. Means were 9.0 (pure ST) and 10.1 (TTST); a sign test was reliable (z = 1.83, p < .05).

"More pairs from the TTST condition than the pure ST condition were correctly completed [F(1,59) = 11.52, MSe = 2.96,p < .005]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The retrieval benefit occurs at the level of individual items, not through general practice at retrieval — related
• The TTST advantage persists in a pure-list design, ruling out differential rehearsal (Experiment 4) — related
• Retrieval before re-presentation (TTST) improves final cued recall of nonsense-syllable/number pairs relative to pure study (Experiment 1) — related
• The TTST advantage replicates with meaningful Eskimo/English word pairs (Experiment 2) — related
• Preschoolers' recall of repeated items exceeds the maximum predicted by encoding variability theories assuming independent encodings — related