Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs
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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychonomic bulletin & review 2021-02, Vol.28 (1), p.268-273 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 273 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 268 |
container_title | Psychonomic bulletin & review |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Seabrooke, Tina Mitchell, Chris J. Wills, Andy J. Hollins, Timothy J. |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2444881256</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2444881256</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-ce3e16f908d3be8d7a3bfeabdc0bca87d2c7c86b52740dba03c819167b3997913</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoVqt_wIMEvHjo6iTZj-QoxS8o6EHBW0iy2bJlu6lJFum_N7VVwYOnCcwz70wehM4IXLGq4NeBsJyyDChkQDiBbL2HjkjBSFYwCvvpDaXIBOP5CB2HsACAohTlIRoxKgpBBD1Cb8_eRhti28-xdi7EgL01bt63sXX9BOsh4t5FbAZbbzqq6ybYNTgqP7cJbrxb4qH3tlMxER_O13ilWh9O0EGjumBPd3WMXu9uX6YP2ezp_nF6M8tMTkTMjGWWlI0AXjNteV0pphurdG1AG8WrmprK8FIXtMqh1gqY4USQstJMiEoQNkaX29yVd-9D-olctsHYrlO9dUOQNM9zzgktyoRe_EEXbvB9ui5RiQEGyecY0S1lvAvB20aufLtUfi0JyI13ufUuk3f55V2u09D5LnrQS1v_jHyLTgDbAiG1-rn1v7v_if0E8mmO2w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2488103042</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Seabrooke, Tina ; Mitchell, Chris J. ; Wills, Andy J. ; Hollins, Timothy J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Seabrooke, Tina ; Mitchell, Chris J. ; Wills, Andy J. ; Hollins, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-9384</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5320</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32959192</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Brief Report ; Cognitive Psychology ; Cued recall ; Cues ; Experiments ; Memory ; Psychology ; Recognition ; Semantics ; Set theory ; Target recognition ; Vocabulary development</subject><ispartof>Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021-02, Vol.28 (1), p.268-273</ispartof><rights>The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2020</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Feb 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-ce3e16f908d3be8d7a3bfeabdc0bca87d2c7c86b52740dba03c819167b3997913</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-ce3e16f908d3be8d7a3bfeabdc0bca87d2c7c86b52740dba03c819167b3997913</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32959192$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Seabrooke, Tina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Chris J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wills, Andy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hollins, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><title>Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs</title><title>Psychonomic bulletin & review</title><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Brief Report</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Cued recall</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Recognition</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Set theory</subject><subject>Target recognition</subject><subject>Vocabulary development</subject><issn>1069-9384</issn><issn>1531-5320</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoVqt_wIMEvHjo6iTZj-QoxS8o6EHBW0iy2bJlu6lJFum_N7VVwYOnCcwz70wehM4IXLGq4NeBsJyyDChkQDiBbL2HjkjBSFYwCvvpDaXIBOP5CB2HsACAohTlIRoxKgpBBD1Cb8_eRhti28-xdi7EgL01bt63sXX9BOsh4t5FbAZbbzqq6ybYNTgqP7cJbrxb4qH3tlMxER_O13ilWh9O0EGjumBPd3WMXu9uX6YP2ezp_nF6M8tMTkTMjGWWlI0AXjNteV0pphurdG1AG8WrmprK8FIXtMqh1gqY4USQstJMiEoQNkaX29yVd-9D-olctsHYrlO9dUOQNM9zzgktyoRe_EEXbvB9ui5RiQEGyecY0S1lvAvB20aufLtUfi0JyI13ufUuk3f55V2u09D5LnrQS1v_jHyLTgDbAiG1-rn1v7v_if0E8mmO2w</recordid><startdate>20210201</startdate><enddate>20210201</enddate><creator>Seabrooke, Tina</creator><creator>Mitchell, Chris J.</creator><creator>Wills, Andy J.</creator><creator>Hollins, Timothy J.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210201</creationdate><title>Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs</title><author>Seabrooke, Tina ; Mitchell, Chris J. ; Wills, Andy J. ; Hollins, Timothy J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-ce3e16f908d3be8d7a3bfeabdc0bca87d2c7c86b52740dba03c819167b3997913</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Brief Report</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Cued recall</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Recognition</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Set theory</topic><topic>Target recognition</topic><topic>Vocabulary development</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Seabrooke, Tina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Chris J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wills, Andy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hollins, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychonomic bulletin & review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Seabrooke, Tina</au><au>Mitchell, Chris J.</au><au>Wills, Andy J.</au><au>Hollins, Timothy J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs</atitle><jtitle>Psychonomic bulletin & review</jtitle><stitle>Psychon Bull Rev</stitle><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><date>2021-02-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>268</spage><epage>273</epage><pages>268-273</pages><issn>1069-9384</issn><eissn>1531-5320</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>32959192</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1069-9384 |
ispartof | Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021-02, Vol.28 (1), p.268-273 |
issn | 1069-9384 1531-5320 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2444881256 |
source | SpringerLink Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Behavioral Science and Psychology Brief Report Cognitive Psychology Cued recall Cues Experiments Memory Psychology Recognition Semantics Set theory Target recognition Vocabulary development |
title | Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T00%3A34%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pretesting%20boosts%20recognition,%20but%20not%20cued%20recall,%20of%20targets%20from%20unrelated%20word%20pairs&rft.jtitle=Psychonomic%20bulletin%20&%20review&rft.au=Seabrooke,%20Tina&rft.date=2021-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=268&rft.epage=273&rft.pages=268-273&rft.issn=1069-9384&rft.eissn=1531-5320&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2444881256%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2488103042&rft_id=info:pmid/32959192&rfr_iscdi=true |