Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24609081›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Very similar spacing-effect patterns in very different learning/practice domains.

Jürgen Kornmeier, Manfred Spitzer, Zrinka Sosic-Vasic

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Right Time for a Synapse to Change: Windows and Mechanisms of Multiday Training Trials.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Network motifs exhibiting a differential response to spaced and massed inputs.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The impact of temporal distribution on fear extinction learning.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jürgen KornmeierInstitute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, Freiburg, Germany; Eye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Manfred SpitzerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany; Transfer Center for Neuroscience and Learning, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Zrinka Sosic-VasicDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Temporally distributed ("spaced") learning can be twice as efficient as massed learning. This "spacing effect" occurs with a broad spectrum of learning materials, with humans of different ages, with non-human vertebrates and also invertebrates. This indicates, that very basic learning mechanisms are at work ("generality"). Although most studies so far focused on very narrow spacing interval ranges, there is some evidence for a non-monotonic behavior of this "spacing effect" ("nonlinearity") with optimal spacing intervals at different time scales. In the current study we focused both the nonlinearity aspect by using a broad range of spacing intervals and the generality aspect by using very different learning/practice domains: Participants learned German-Japanese word pairs and performed visual acuity tests. For each of six groups we used a different spacing interval between learning/practice units from 7 min to 24 h in logarithmic steps. Memory retention was studied in three consecutive final tests, one, seven and 28 days after the final learning unit. For both the vocabulary learning and visual acuity performance we found a highly significant effect of the factor spacing interval on the final test performance. In the 12 h-spacing-group about 85% of the learned words stayed in memory and nearly all of the visual acuity gain was preserved. In the 24 h-spacing-group, in contrast, only about 33% of the learned words were retained and the visual acuity gain dropped to zero. The very similar patterns of results from the two very different learning/practice domains point to similar underlying mechanisms. Further, our results indicate spacing in the range of 12 hours as optimal. A second peak may be around a spacing interval of 20 min but here the data are less clear. We discuss relations between our results and basic learning at the neuronal level.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansLanguageLearningMaleMemoryMental RecallReaction TimeRetention, PsychologyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24609081
PMCPMC3946552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.