Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift

Recent evidence indicates that in intermixed recognition testing of different stimulus classes, people can apply different decision criteria (a criterion shift) to stimulus classes distinguished by the study-test delay (Singer, Gagnon, & Richards, 2002), but not by a conspicuous strength manipulation (Stretch & Wixted, 1998b). In an attempt to reconcile these differences, we applied Singer et al.'s text retrieval method to word recognition. People first studied blocked items from each of five categories. After a delay, five new category lists were presented. After each one, the participants recognized intermixed targets and distractors from the current category and one of the earlier ones. At delays of up to 40 min, the answering criteria for immediate and delayed categories were indistinguishable. At delays of 2 days, in contrast, however, both yes-no and confidence-rating data indicated that more lenient criteria were applied to delayed than to immediate test items. This suggests that people can use the delay between study and test to flexibly adjust the decision criteria of word recognition.     

Fact learning: How information accuracy,delay, and repeated testing change retention and retrieval experience

Previous classroom studies have shown that the phenomenology of studied facts changes over time. However, pedagogical needs preclude both the study of errors and the separation of the effects that delay and repeated testing have on retention and retrieval experience. We addressed these issues together in an experiment where participants read stories containing correct and misleading information and provided Remember, Just Know, and Familiar judgements on immediate and delayed general knowledge tests. After 2 days, information learned from the stories shifted from Remembered to Just Known, but repeated testing attenuated this shift. Interestingly, similar patterns of retrieval and phenomenology were observed for correct and misleading information with one important difference—the shift over time to Just Knowing was significantly greater for correct than for misleading information. Together, these findings show the roles of information accuracy, delay, and testing in determining both retention and the subjective experience of retrieval.     

Fact learning: how information accuracy, delay, and repeated testing change retention and retrieval experience

Previous classroom studies have shown that the phenomenology of studied facts changes over time. However, pedagogical needs preclude both the study of errors and the separation of the effects that delay and repeated testing have on retention and retrieval experience. We addressed these issues together in an experiment where participants read stories containing correct and misleading information and provided Remember, Just Know, and Familiar judgements on immediate and delayed general knowledge tests. After 2 days, information learned from the stories shifted from Remembered to Just Known, but repeated testing attenuated this shift. Interestingly, similar patterns of retrieval and phenomenology were observed for correct and misleading information with one important difference--the shift over time to Just Knowing was significantly greater for correct than for misleading information. Together, these findings show the roles of information accuracy, delay, and testing in determining both retention and the subjective experience of retrieval.     

Strategic retrieval processing and the impact of knowing when a memory was first created

Retrieval orientation refers to a process where participants strategically alter how a memory cue is processed in response to different task demands. In the present study we explored whether retrieval orientation is influenced by knowing when an old stimulus was first encoded. Participants completed separate remember/know test blocks for old items from a recent delay (40 min) and old items from a remote delay (48 h). Manipulations at encoding ensured that performance levels were matched between these two blocks, thus avoiding confounds with differences in retrieval effort. Importantly, a third test block comprised old items from both delays randomly intermixed. As the nature of the old items varies unpredictably in the mixed block, it should not be possibly to adopt a specific retrieval orientation and the mixed block therefore acts as a control condition. Participants saw the words “mixed,” “recent” or “remote” prior to each test block. Comparing ERPs from the recent and remote blocks permitted an investigation of whether participants alter their retrieval orientation in response to the specific length of the retention interval. Comparing ERPs from the pure (recent and remote) test blocks to ERPs from the mixed block permitted an investigation of whether delay information per se led to differences in retrieval strategy. Analysis of the ERP data found no differences between the recent and remote blocks. However, ERPs from these pure blocks were significantly less positive than ERPs from the mixed block from 200 ms towards the end of the epoch. The findings suggest that the delay information was useful in a general sense and encouraged retrieval strategies distinct from those engaged in the mixed block. We speculate that such strategies might relate to whether or not the retrieval search is specific and constrained and/or whether processes that serve to reinstate the original encoding context are engaged.     

Retrieval plus scanning: Does it occur?

In the two experiments reported here, we tested the retrieval-plus-scan model of delayed probe recognition by adding a second probe 2 sec after subjects had responded to the first probe. According to this model, the list items should still be in consciousness from the first probe at the time of the second probe. Consequently, on tests in which the first probe had been tested immediately, we expected to find the same pattern of performance on both first and second probes. On tests in which the first probe came after a filled delay, we expected the first-probe data to show the effects of retrieval and proactive interference. These effects should not be present on the second probe. The results of the first-probe data in both experiments were consistent with the retrieval-plus-scan model. The second-probe data did not fit the model, however. In the first experiment, the second probe on what had been delayed first-probe trials still produced intercept differences, indicating the presence of retrieval. In the second experiment, the effects of proactive interference were still present on the second probe. It is suggested that these results not only invalidate the retrieval-plus-scan model for delayed probe recognition but that they, along with other results, cast doubt on a scanning operation in immediate probe recognition.     

Segregation accuracy in item‐method directed forgetting across multiple tests

Two experiments examined recall across tests following item‐method directed‐forgetting instructions and the varying of presentation duration of items at study. For both immediate testing (Experiment 1) and delayed testing (Experiment 2), accurate recall of remember instruction items (R‐items) exceeded the accurate recall of forget instruction items (F‐items). However, some F‐items from study were inaccurately recalled as R‐items and R‐items from study as F‐items. Inaccurate recall persisted across tests for both immediate and delayed recall and increased across tests for immediate recall. We view the R‐item advantage in accurate recall as consistent with the account they receive more rehearsal at study than do F‐items. We view inaccurate recall as reflecting the bias to report items retrieved on an immediate test lacking instructional tags as F‐items. On delayed tests, items retrieved lacking instructional tags are first assessed against a criterion point on a memory‐strength continuum and those with strength above the criterion reported as R‐items and those below the criterion as F‐items.     

Phonological recoding and rapid orthographic learning in third-graders' silent reading: a critical test of the self-teaching hypothesis

This study examined rapid orthographic learning following silent reading in third-grade children as a function of number of target nonword repetitions and test delay. In each of two test sessions at least 6 days apart, children read a series of short stories, with each story containing a different nonword repeated either four or eight times. In the second session, after the stories had been read, children were asked to read short lists of target nonwords or homophonic alternatives. Children read target nonwords faster than homophones, indicating that they had formed functional orthographic representations of the target nonwords through phonologically recoding them during silent story reading. They also preferred target nonwords to homophones in an orthographic choice task in which the alternatives included the target, the homophone, and a visually similar foil, although here orthographic learning was stronger for items encountered eight times within stories and stronger for items tested immediately. These findings provide critical evidence in support of Share's self-teaching through phonological recoding hypothesis.     

Retention beyond the threshold: Test-enhanced relearning of forgotten information

The effect of repeated testing on delayed relearning of paired associates was investigated. Participants learned two lists of Lithuanian-Dutch word pairs until reaching the criterion of one correct recall from long-term memory. In one condition, items subsequently received three post-retrieval study trials and in the other condition items received three post-retrieval test trials. Participants returned one week later for delayed recall and relearning. Post-retrieval test trials resulted in better delayed recall performance than post-retrieval study trials. Moreover, we found that the items that were repeatedly studied or tested one week prior to relearning were relearned faster than a new set of similar (not previously presented) items. Most importantly, items were relearned faster when they had previously been learned under conditions of post-retrieval testing than items learned under conditions of post-retrieval study. Taken together, the results indicate that the benefits of repeated testing are not just limited to conscious recall on a delayed test. Repeated testing during initial learning is also a very effective strategy to enhance delayed relearning.     

Contextually relevant aspects of meaning

A series of six experiments investigated whether inferences about contextually relevant aspects of meaning were encoded into memory during reading. In all the experiments, subjects studied short paragraphs. Then, test sentences were presented that expressed relevant aspects of meaning that had not been explicitly stated in the paragraphs. For example, for a paragraph about searching for the correct color to paint a picture of a tomato, a relevant aspect of meaning would be that tomatoes are red. The test sentences were presented either immediately following the relevant paragraph or after a delay. With immediate testing, it was argued that the facilitation obtained in verification latency could result from processes occurring either when the context was read or when the test sentence was verified. With delayed testing, evidence was found to support the hypothesis that contextually relevant aspects of meaning are incorporated into the memory representation of the paragraph, but such evidence was obtained only when the retrieval environment encouraged the use of newly learned information in the decision process on the test sentence.     

Similarity-guided depth of retrieval: constraining at the front end.

Lee Brooks has done important work to show that categorization often reflects reliance on specific instances rather than on an abstract representation. His work on the advantages of using a diagnostic hypothesis to search medical stimuli has demonstrated how constraining what one looks for influences clinical reasoning. Similarly, cognitive control can be accomplished by constraining memory retrieval in ways that influence interpretation of a memory probe. Here, we report two experiments in which the similarity of study items constrained how test items were interrogated for an immediate memory test and thereby produced differences in the depth of retrieval. A novel procedure that tests foil memory was used to diagnose differences in similarity-guided retrieval depth.     

Production on hold: delaying vocal production enhances the production effect in free recall

The Production Effect (PE) represents superior memory for produced (read aloud) relative to non-produced (silently read) items. Another method of improving memory is taking a test on the study material – the Testing Effect. We evaluated the combined influence of both effects on free recall memory, using delayed vocal production, in which study words were vocally produced only after their disappearance. Such procedure involves an initial instant test since participants had to vocally retrieve the words (rather than read them aloud). In five experiments, participants were presented with study words that they were instructed to learn by no-production (reading silently), immediate production (reading aloud), delayed reading aloud, or delayed vocal production (instant retrieval). The results showed superior recall for delayed production over all other conditions. We suggest that the source of this superiority is the desirable difficulty induced by the addition of the initial test (retrieval effort) to the vocal production. The novel delayed production condition forms a superior mnemonic.     

Disentangling encoding versus retrieval explanations of the bizarreness effect: Implications for distinctiveness

Recall effects attributed to distinctiveness have been explained by both encoding and retrieval accounts. Resolution of this theoretical controversy has been clouded because the typical methodology confounds the encoding and retrieval contexts. Using bizarre and common sentences as materials, we introduce a paradigm that decouples the nature of the encoding context (mixed vs. unmixed lists of items) from the retrieval set (mixed vs. unmixed retrieval sets). Experiment 1 presented unmixed lists for study, and Experiment 2 presented mixed lists for study. In both experiments, significant bizarreness effects were obtained in free recall when the retrieval set intermixed items but not when the retrieval set consisted of only one item type. Also, Experiment 1, using a repeated testing procedure, did not reveal evidence for more extensive encoding of bizarre sentences than of common sentences. The results support the idea that retrieval dynamics primarily mediate the bizarreness effect, and perhaps more generally, distinctiveness effects.     

Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format

The act of retrieving information modifies memory in critical ways. In particular, testing-effect studies have demonstrated that retrieval practice (compared to restudy or to no testing) benefits long-term retention and protects from retroactive interference. Although such testing effects have previously been demonstrated in both between- and within-subjects manipulations of retrieval practice, it is less clear whether one or the other testing format is most beneficial on a final test. In two paired-associate learning experiments conducted under typical testing-effect conditions, we manipulated restudy and test trials using either blocked or mixed practice conditions while equating other factors. Retrieval-practice and restudy trials were presented either separately in different blocks (blocked practice) or randomly intermixed (mixed practice). In Experiment 1, recall was assessed after short and long delay intervals; in Experiment 2, the final memory test occurred after a short delay, but with or without an interfering activity before the final test. In both experiments, typical testing effects emerged, and critically, they were found to be unaffected by practice format. These results support the conclusion that testing effects are robust and emerge to equal extents in both blocked and mixed designs. The generality of testing effects further encourages the application of retrieval practice as a memory enhancer in a variety of contexts, including education.     

Metamemory for narrative text

In this experiment, we investigated metamemory for narrative text passages. Subjects read two stories and made memory predictions for the idea units in one and rated the importance of ideas in the other. Half of the subjects were asked to recall the story immediately after reading the passages and half were asked to recall 1 week later; half received passages with single inconsistent idea units and half received passages with corresponding consistent idea units. All subjects made confidence judgments about the accuracy of their recall. Subjects’ prediction ratings were related to recall, as shown by significant prediction accuracy quotients. Importance ratings were related to recall on the delayed test but not on the immediate test. Memory prediction ratings predicted recall better than did importance ratings. The absolute level of memory predictions did not differ with delay, but subjects did give higher confidence judgments on an immediate than on a delayed test. Subjects recalled the inconsistent idea better than the consistent idea for one story but not for the other. For both stories, subjects predicted that they would remember the inconsistent ideas better, suggesting that they have avon Restorff-type view, rather than a schema view, of memory. We conclude that subjects can predict their memory for the idea units in narrative text.     

Decomposing the interaction between retention interval and study/test practice: the role of retrievability

Even without feedback, test practice enhances delayed performance compared to study practice, but the size of the effect is variable across studies. We investigated the benefit of testing, separating initially retrievable items from initially nonretrievable items. In two experiments, an initial test determined item retrievability. Retrievable or nonretrievable items were subsequently presented for repeated study or test practice. Collapsing across items, in Experiment 1, we obtained the typical cross-over interaction between retention interval and practice type. For retrievable items, however, the cross-over interaction was quantitatively different, with a small study benefit for an immediate test and a larger testing benefit after a delay. For nonretrievable items, there was a large study benefit for an immediate test, but one week later there was no difference between the study and test practice conditions. In Experiment 2, initially nonretrievable items were given additional study followed by either an immediate test or even more additional study, and one week later performance did not differ between the two conditions. These results indicate that the effect size of study/test practice is due to the relative contribution of retrievable and nonretrievable items.     

Decomposing the interaction between retention interval and study/test practice: The role of retrievability

Even without feedback, test practice enhances delayed performance compared to study practice, but the size of the effect is variable across studies. We investigated the benefit of testing, separating initially retrievable items from initially nonretrievable items. In two experiments, an initial test determined item retrievability. Retrievable or nonretrievable items were subsequently presented for repeated study or test practice. Collapsing across items, in Experiment 1, we obtained the typical cross-over interaction between retention interval and practice type. For retrievable items, however, the cross-over interaction was quantitatively different, with a small study benefit for an immediate test and a larger testing benefit after a delay. For nonretrievable items, there was a large study benefit for an immediate test, but one week later there was no difference between the study and test practice conditions. In Experiment 2, initially nonretrievable items were given additional study followed by either an immediate test or even more additional study, and one week later performance did not differ between the two conditions. These results indicate that the effect size of study/test practice is due to the relative contribution of retrievable and nonretrievable items.     

Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items

In forward testing effects, taking a test enhances memory for subsequently studied material. These effects have been observed for previously studied and tested items, a potentially item-specific testing effect, and newly studied untested items, a purely generalized testing effect. We directly compared item-specific and generalized forward testing effects using procedures to separate testing benefits due to encoding versus retrieval. Participants studied two lists of Swahili–English word pairs, with the second study list containing “new” pairs intermixed with the previously studied “old” pairs. Participants completed a review phase in which they took a cued-recall test on only the “old” pairs or restudied them. In Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2, the review phase was given either before or after the second study list. Testing benefited memory to the same degree for both “new” and “old” pairs, suggesting that there were no pair-specific benefits of testing. The larger benefit from testing when review was given before rather than after the second study list suggests that the memory enhancement was due to both testing-enhanced encoding and testing-enhanced retrieval. To better equate generalized testing effects for “new” and “old” pairs, Experiment 3 intermixed them in the review phase. A statistically significant pair-specific testing effect for “old” items was now observed. Overall, these results show that forward testing effects are due to both testing-enhanced encoding and retrieval effects and that direct, pair-specific forward testing benefits are considerably smaller than indirect, generalized forward testing benefits.     

The effects of delay and interference: A speed-accuracy study

This paper examines the effect of (1) delay between learning and test and (2) associative interference on memory retrieval speed. The speed-accuracy tradeoff methodology, which interrupts the retrieval process at various times (0.3, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 sec) after presentation of the test item, provides a means of separating retrieval speed effects from effects on overall memory strength. Performance at short processing times is an index of retrieval speed. Performance given ample processing time is a measure of asymptotic accuracy, or memory strength. Increasing the delay between learning and test or introduction of interference relations lowered memory trace strength, as reflected in asymptotic accuracy. Items tested shortly (about 3 sec) after learning showed a significant speedup in retrieval relative to items tested at a longer (several minute) delay. Further analysis suggested that the delay effect on retrieval was primarily the result of immediate repetition, or testing of the last-learned item. The interference manipulation showed a slight and nonsignificant tendency toward slowing of memory retrieval. The implications of these results for various models of retrieval are explored via simulations. The results of all the simulations suggested a direct-access retrieval process where associations are processed largely in parallel. Contradiction or mismatch information in recognizing new items was important because it provided an explanation for a slight slowing in retrieval due to interference even with a parallel-processing assumption. Faster retrieval for the last-learned item may be the result of residual activation following active processing.     

尝试提取复杂信息失败的学习：吃一堑长一智？

摘 要：在学习中,提取失败能否产生对知识的有效学习是一个很有意义的研究课题。以事实和概念类知识为实验材料,三个实验采用经典范式探讨了复杂意义条件下的提取失败后的学习效果。结果显示仅在尝试提取事实类题目失败后,促进了知识的保持和迁移;在迁移成绩上延时反馈优于即时反馈的效果。表明尝试提取复杂材料的信息失败后,知识的类型和反馈的时机决定了学习效果。