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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychonomic bulletin & review 2021-02, Vol.28 (1), p.268-273
Hauptverfasser: Seabrooke, Tina, Mitchell, Chris J., Wills, Andy J., Hollins, Timothy J.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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