Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39744144›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2024

Developmental improvements in the ability to benefit from testing across middle childhood.

Sandra Rodríguez-Gonzalo, Jaione Arnaez-Telleria, Pedro M Paz-Alonso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sandra Rodríguez-GonzaloBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Jaione Arnaez-TelleriaBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Pedro M Paz-AlonsoBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extensive behavioral research on adults has shown that retrieval practice is highly beneficial for long-term memory retention. However, limited evidence exists on the developmental course of this benefit. Here, we present data from a behavioral study involving 7-14-year-old children who had to encode a total of 60 weakly semantically related cue-target word pairs using either repeated retrieval or repeated study encoding strategies. Results revealed age-related increases in the ability to benefit from testing during encoding from early middle childhood to early adolescence. In contrast, repeated study during encoding did not lead to developmental improvements in long-term memory retention across this age range. Individual differences in vocabulary knowledge, short-term memory and working memory were positively associated with long-term memory retention only for those participants who encoded the information via repeated study. These results indicate that (1) the mechanisms determining the testing effect may not be fully in place by early middle childhood, (2) the ability to benefit from testing improves over the middle childhood years, and (3) these benefits are not associated with individual differences in memory and high-cognitive functioning. One potential interpretation of these findings is that changes in sleep-dependent consolidation processes during middle childhood may be critical for understanding the observed developmental differences in ability to enhance long-term memory via the testing effect.

Indexed as

early adolescencelong-term memorymiddle-childhoodretrieval practicetesting effect

Identifiers

PMID39744144
PMCPMC11688304

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.