Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb;28(1):268-273.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y.

Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs

Tina Seabrooke  1 , Chris J Mitchell  2 , Andy J Wills  2 , Timothy J Hollins  2
Affiliations

Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs

Tina Seabrooke et al. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Attempting to retrieve the answer to a question on an initial test can improve memory for that answer on a subsequent test, relative to an equivalent study period. Such retrieval attempts can be beneficial even when they are unsuccessful, although this benefit is usually only seen with related word pairs. Three experiments examined the effects of pretesting for both related (e.g., pond-frog) and unrelated (e.g., pillow-leaf) word pairs on cued recall and target recognition. Pretesting improved subsequent cued recall performance for related but not for unrelated word pairs, relative to simply studying the word pairs. Tests of target recognition, by contrast, revealed benefits of pretesting for memory of targets from both related and unrelated word pairs. These data challenge popular theories that suggest that the pretesting effect depends on partial activation of the target during the pretesting phase.

Keywords: Learning; Memory; Pretesting; Testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Baguley, T. (2012). Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence intervals for ANOVA. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 158–175. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0123-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From Learning Processes to Cognitive Processes: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 2, pp. 35–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    1. Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40, 505–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0 - DOI
    1. Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028468 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huelser, B. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2012). Making related errors facilitates learning , but learners do not know it. Memory & Cognition, 40, 514–527. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0167-z - DOI

LinkOut - more resources