Home · C0
C0 weakened
After the material has been encoded, practicing retrieval produces more durable retention than spending the same time restudying when the criterion test is delayed, items are correctly retrieved repeatedly in practice with corrective feedback (a single correct retrieval is not enough), and no-feedback multiple-choice practice is excluded. At an immediate (~5 min) test, equal-time restudy can be superior. Once initial learning is equated, the claim does not assert that this advantage grows as final-test delay grows. The claim does not hold when encoding never succeeded, when the practice test is a poor match to what must later be remembered, when practice accuracy is relatively low and no feedback is given, or when “testing” is high-stakes performance rather than practice. The claim does not transfer to novel, meaningless abstract visual materials that lack preexisting semantic scaffolding.
- Status
- weakened
- Last change
- 2026-09-28
- Serves
- Q1 (What is optimal learning?)
- Ages
- not restricted by the claim text; linked bank evidence is mostly adults/university students plus age-spanning reviews (overgripande)
- Depends on
- C0 depends-on C1 (retrieval-vs-restudy only applies after encoding succeeded).
- Bounds
- Main contrast is for delayed criterion tests, not immediate (~5 min) tests. Delayed contrast requires repeated successful retrievals with corrective feedback (not one-shot success); no-feedback multiple-choice practice is excluded. Delay-growth of the retrieval–restudy advantage is not claimed once initial learning is equated. High semantic relatedness of cue–target materials reduces relative efficacy of retrieval vs restudy (~26%) but does not erase the advantage (Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2026; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-28). Novel meaningless abstract visual materials lacking preexisting semantic scaffolding: McCarter, Huber & Cowell 2025 (six experiments) found restudy ≥ retrieval (sometimes significantly better) despite feedback and delays — outside the claim (cf. Ferreira & Wimber 2023 on meaningful vs low-semantic visual materials).
- Does-not-transfer-to
- Novel, meaningless abstract visual materials lacking preexisting semantic knowledge / scaffolding (McCarter, Huber & Cowell 2025; cf. Ferreira & Wimber 2023).
- What would kill this
- Equal or superior delayed retention for restudy when encoding succeeded, the practice test matches the criterion, retrievals are repeatedly successful with corrective feedback (kills the main contrast; does not restore delay-growth once learning is equated, erase the immediate-test bound, reinstate no-feedback MC, or treat one-shot success as adequate).
- Tutor consequence
- none yet
Attack record
12 attacks: 6 survived, 6 narrowed
2026-09-08 narrowed
- Attack
- When initial learning is equated, the retrieval–restudy retention gap does not grow as final-test delay grows.
- Target
- claim-text
- Source
- apprentice | Roediger & Karpicke 2006
- Steelmans to
- The delay-growth conjunct is false as a general rule; a larger late gap is not a reliable property of retrieval practice once encoding success is matched.
- Why
- Human re-apply as weaken. The delay-growth conjunct is dropped as a general assertion once initial learning is equated; main retrieval-vs-restudy contrast kept. Roediger & Karpicke 2006 still shows a delay-dependent pattern in their design, but the claim no longer states growth-with-delay as part of C0. Claim field and Bounds rewritten in the same turn; brief rewritten.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-08 survived
- Attack
- Outside lab word-list and short prose-passage paradigms, equal-time restudy yields delayed criterion retention at least as high as retrieval practice when encoding succeeded and practice matches the test.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- apprentice
- Steelmans to
- C0’s main contrast is paradigm-bound; without an explicit transfer limit the claim overreaches educationally complex materials.
- Why
- Scope inference only — no identifiable counter-study applied in this turn showing equal or superior delayed restudy outside word-list/prose paradigms under encoding-succeeded and criterion-matched conditions. Did not force a transfer Bound; main-contrast kill-condition not met. Claim field unchanged. (The Bounds field later that day records only the delay-growth withdrawal from ledger line 1 — not this attack.)
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-08 survived
- Attack
- When encoding success is only assumed after a single study pass, a large unencoded item subset remains for which equal-time restudy yields delayed retention at least as high as retrieval practice, so the main contrast does not hold under the claim’s own encoding precondition.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Dunlosky et al. 2013
- Steelmans to
- C0’s retrieval advantage is conditional on verified encoding; treating one study exposure as “encoded” lets restudy of unlearned items erase the claimed contrast at delay.
- Why
- Evidence vs inference: Dunlosky et al. 2013 rate practice testing high utility and rereading low; they do not report equal-time restudy beating retrieval on verified-encoded items, nor a result that forces a new Bound beyond C0’s existing “encoding never succeeded” carve-out. Operational reading of a carve-out already in the claim; no status-changing named counter-result. Claim field unchanged; no new Bound written.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-08 survived
- Attack
- When practice-test format or cues mismatch the criterion test, equal-time restudy yields delayed criterion retention at least as high as retrieval practice after encoding succeeded.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Bjork & Bjork 2020
- Steelmans to
- Transfer-appropriate processing / desirable-difficulty limits mean a “practice test” that does not match criterion fails to beat restudy at delay; the mismatch carve-out must bind typical surface-form mismatches, not only blatant content mismatch.
- Why
- Bjork & Bjork 2020 discuss desirable difficulties and the need for adequate prior knowledge so difficulty is not undesirable; they do not supply a named result that equal-time restudy ≥ retrieval under encoding-succeeded but format/cue-mismatched practice. C0 already carves out poor practice–criterion match. Tightening “surface-form” into Bounds would be inference beyond the cited work. Claim unchanged.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-08 survived
- Attack
- When restudy is distributed across the same schedule as retrieval attempts, equal-time restudy yields delayed retention equal or superior to retrieval practice under encoding-succeeded and criterion-matched conditions.
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Roediger & Karpicke 2006
- Steelmans to
- The main contrast is an artifact of comparing retrieval to massed or single-bolus restudy; once restudy is schedule-matched, retrieval does not beat restudy at delay.
- Why
- Evidence vs inference: Roediger & Karpicke 2006 contrasts testing with repeated studying of prose passages across retention intervals; it is not a full schedule-matched distributed-restudy design that equates temporal distribution of restudy episodes with retrieval attempts. Whether that equated design removes the advantage is underdetermined from the seed alone. Kill-condition not met. Claim unchanged.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-08 survived
- Attack
- For educationally complex materials (multi-step procedures, transfer and application tests), equal-time restudy yields delayed criterion retention at least as high as retrieval practice when encoding succeeded and practice matches the criterion.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Adesope et al. 2017
- Steelmans to
- The main contrast must be bounded to simpler retention paradigms; educationally complex criterion performance does not show a retrieval-over-restudy advantage under the claim’s own success conditions.
- Why
- Adesope et al. 2017 find practice testing beats restudy/rereading overall (g ≈ 0.51) and still show a positive testing effect on transfer outcomes (g ≈ 0.53, k = 11), smaller than pure retention but not restudy ≥ retrieval. The attack’s claim that complex/transfer criteria erase the advantage is not established by that meta; no new Bound written. Distinct force from the earlier vague outside-lab line, but status unchanged.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-08 narrowed
- Attack
- At an immediate (~5 min) criterion test after encoding succeeded and practice matched the criterion, equal-time restudy yields superior retention to retrieval practice.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Roediger & Karpicke 2006
- Steelmans to
- The main contrast is false as an unrestricted claim about “more durable retention”; restudy beats retrieval at immediate test, so the contrast must be bounded to delayed criterion tests (without restoring delay-growth).
- Why
- Clerk Apply block 1 (cycle 1/5). Named result in Roediger & Karpicke 2006: after 5 min, repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing; delayed tests reversed. Claim and Bounds rewritten in the same turn so durable retention means delayed criterion, not immediate; delay-growth withdrawal unchanged. Brief rewritten.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-08 narrowed
- Attack
- When accuracy on the practice test is relatively low and no corrective feedback is given, equal-time restudy yields delayed retention at least as high as retrieval practice under encoding-succeeded and criterion-matched conditions.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Dunlosky et al. 2013
- Steelmans to
- The living delayed main contrast overclaims; the robust delayed advantage is practice testing with feedback over restudy, not testing alone under low practice success.
- Why
- Clerk Apply block 1 (cycle 4/5). Dunlosky et al. 2013: testing alone sometimes fails to beat restudy when practice-test accuracy is relatively low; testing with feedback over restudy is extremely robust. Claim and Bounds rewritten same turn to require adequate practice success and corrective feedback for the delayed contrast. Brief rewritten.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-08 narrowed
- Attack
- Multiple-choice practice without feedback increases delayed intrusions of false alternatives relative to equal-time restudy, so delayed cued-recall accuracy is not superior for retrieval under encoding-succeeded conditions.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Butler & Roediger 2008
- Steelmans to
- Without feedback, MC retrieval practice can harm delayed accuracy via perseveration of wrong alternatives; the delayed main contrast must exclude no-feedback MC practice or require corrective feedback.
- Why
- Clerk Apply block 2 (cycle 4/5). Butler & Roediger 2008 (as reported in Dunlosky et al. 2013): MC practice without feedback increased false-alternative intrusions on delayed cued recall; feedback prevented that increase. Claim and Bounds rewritten same turn to exclude no-feedback MC. Brief rewritten.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-08 narrowed
- Attack
- A single correct retrieval with corrective feedback does not produce superior delayed retention to equal-time restudy under encoding-succeeded and criterion-matched conditions; the delayed advantage requires repeated successful retrievals with feedback.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Dunlosky et al. 2013
- Steelmans to
- “Adequate practice-test success” in the living claim is underspecified as one-shot success; named dosage evidence ties durable gains to multiple correct retrievals with feedback, so the main contrast must be Bounded to repeated successful retrieval practice.
- Why
- Clerk Apply block 1 (cycle 5/5). Dunlosky et al. 2013 synthesize dosage evidence (e.g. Vaughn & Rawson 2011): final performance rises with multiple correct retrievals in practice vs once. Claim and Bounds rewritten same turn so adequate success means repeated correct retrievals with feedback. Brief rewritten. Block 2 (Adesope mixed retention+transfer) rejected — no ledger line.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-28 survived
- Attack
- For highly semantically related cue–target materials, equal-time restudy yields delayed criterion retention at least as high as retrieval practice with corrective feedback after encoding.
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2026 | DOI 10.1038/s41539-026-00416-8
- Steelmans to
- Kill-condition on the delayed main contrast fails if high relatedness erases the retrieval–restudy gap under feedback.
- Why
- Nightly-attacks 2026-09-28 04:16 Europe/Stockholm. Named result: testing improved 24-h cued recall in both low and high relatedness groups; relative efficacy ~26% smaller for high relatedness (dual-memory model + cumulative distributions) but restudy did not equal or beat retrieval-with-feedback. Kill-condition not met. Clause tested: high semantic relatedness under feedback. Claim field unchanged; Bounds note Gupta kill-test survived.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-28 narrowed
- Attack
- For novel, meaningless abstract visual materials lacking preexisting semantic knowledge, equal-time restudy yields criterion retention at least as high as retrieval practice with feedback, so the main contrast does not transfer to such materials.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- McCarter, Huber & Cowell 2025 | DOI 10.1037/xlm0001430
- Steelmans to
- C0’s delayed retrieval-over-restudy contrast is material-bound; without an explicit transfer limit it overreaches asemantic novel visuals where TE is absent or reversed.
- Why
- Nightly-attacks 2026-09-28 04:16 Europe/Stockholm. Named multi-experiment result: across six experiments restudy ≥ retrieval for novel meaningless visual objects (sometimes significantly better) despite feedback, delays, and heavy-handed practice variants. Complementary: Ferreira & Wimber 2023 (DOI 10.1037/xlm0001248) found TE for meaningful objects but not for low-semantic visual materials. Does not kill the linguistic/prose main contrast. Claim, Bounds, and Does-not-transfer-to rewritten same turn; brief rewritten.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
Linked sources
12 linked sources (7 supports, 5 limits, 2 challenges)
Supports (7)
Limits (5)
Challenges (2)
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.