ArticleNPJ science of learning2023
Retrieval practice is costly and is beneficial only when working memory capacity is abundant.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning from mistakes: Objective and subjective error magnitudes predict the testing effect.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The Effects of Individualized Arousal on Recognition Memory of Words.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trends in testing effect research: from lab to classroom, but not yet for all learners.NPJ science of learning · 2026Review
- Practice testing enhances learning but not attitude change from persuasive texts.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- In-lecture quizzes improve online learning for university and community college students.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Testing the dual-memory framework: individual differences in the magnitude of the retrieval practice effect and fluid intelligence.Cognitive processing · 2025Article
- A working memory dependent dual process model of the testing effect.NPJ science of learning · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous studies have shown that learned information practiced by testing is better retained than that practiced by restudying (the testing effect). However, results are inconsistent regarding the effect of working memory (WM) capacity on the testing effect. Here, we hypothesize that the effect of WM only emerges when task demands challenge WM capacity. We manipulated WM demands by pretraining 30 undergraduate participants in a multi-session visual search task before an associative learning task involving a test/restudy manipulation. The results revealed that, while participants with higher WM capacity showed a consistent testing effect, the benefit of testing only emerged in participants with lower WM capacity when learning familiar stimuli (low WM demands). We simulated the results using a modified source of activation confusion (SAC) model, which implemented a dual-process account of the testing effect. The results suggested that the testing effect only emerges when WM capacity is adequate for both processes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.