ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2025
No evidence of a visual testing effect for novel, meaningless objects.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Semantic relatedness and the efficacy of retrieval practice.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The testing effect is a well-established phenomenon in which memory is better for information that has been enhanced through practice tests rather than through restudying. However, this phenomenon has been studied almost exclusively with verbal or semantically meaningful material. We explored whether the testing effect holds for abstract visual material that lacks both meaning and verbal labels. In a series of six experiments, no evidence for a testing effect was found. Each experiment changed the nature of test practice in different ways that were designed to bolster test practice relative to restudy, such as imposing a delay before the final test, providing different kinds of choice options, providing different kinds of practice feedback, and using drawing as the form of test practice, and yet, the performance after test practice was either similar to the performance after restudy or in some cases significantly worse than restudy (i.e., a negative testing effect). We discuss the theoretical implications of these results, which suggest either that the testing effect relies on properties that our stimuli did not possess-for example, semantic content, high-dimensional content, or preexisting neocortical representations-or that eliciting a testing effect for visual material requires radically different task parameters than for verbal material. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
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.