Home · C1
C1 weakened
Encoding has succeeded when the learner can later access the target under cue conditions that match the practice criterion without new presentation of the material — accessibility under that cue set, not mere study exposure or storage-without-access. Under corrective feedback, that accessibility criterion is stricter than what C0's delayed retrieval-over-restudy contrast requires: the contrast can appear equally when unaided practice success is experimentally low.
- Status
- weakened
- Last change
- 2026-10-02
- Serves
- Q1 (What is optimal learning?)
- Ages
- not restricted by the claim text
- Depends on
- C0 depends-on C1 (retrieval-vs-restudy only applies after encoding succeeded — as a definition of encoding; empirically, with corrective feedback, C0's delayed contrast does not require high unaided practice-phase accessibility success; Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2022).
- Depended on by
- C2 depends-on C1 (C2's "measured without the tool" is C1's accessibility test applied to AI: learning counts only if the target can be reached later without new presentation, and an answer-giving tool is a form of re-presentation).
- Relates to
- C3 relates-to C1 (the bank explains part of the paper advantage as calibration: screen readers overestimate their understanding; that is the gap between feeling that something is known and being able to access it, which C1 draws between exposure and accessibility; thematic, not a dependency).
- Bounds
- Canonical retrieval-practice designs that motivate C0 (e.g. Roediger & Karpicke 2006 Exp. 1) typically gate the restudy/test contrast on study exposure rather than item-level verified retrieval; C1 asserts a stricter accessibility criterion than those designs verify. Success here is accessibility under the practice/criterion cue set (Tulving & Pearlstone), not storage availability alone and not “was on the page.” Encoding success is criterion-relative (Morris, Bransford & Franks transfer-appropriate processing): it is defined relative to the practice/criterion task, not as task-free storage strength. Kill-condition prong 2 is met under corrective feedback (Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2022, DOI 10.3758/s13421-021-01236-4, full text verified 2026-10-01): with practice success experimentally ~0.22 versus ~0.55 via prior-study load, retrieval-with-feedback still beat restudy at ~48 h by a similar margin (Exp. 1 finals ~0.40 vs 0.24 at low success and ~0.60 vs 0.41 at high, no Training×Repetition interaction), so C0's delayed contrast with feedback does not require high unaided practice-phase accessibility success. Racsmány, Szőllősi & Marián 2020 (DOI 10.3758/s13421-020-01041-5, full text verified 2026-10-02): no-feedback equality residual tested and failed — practice success experimentally varied via prior-study load with no practice feedback and a restudy arm; first-final 1-week TE present but not equal across levels (Exp 1 practice ~25–29%, TE d=0.43; Exp 2 ~66–75%, d=1.33; Exp 3 ~76–81%, d=1.71 / ~61% vs ~28%), so without feedback the contrast does not appear equally when accessibility fails for most items; survived 2026-10-02.
- What would kill this
- Showing that the accessibility definition itself collapses to "was studied / received feedback re-presentation," with no residual role for cue-matched accessibility as a distinct criterion. (The residual no-feedback equality prong was tested and failed: Racsmány, Szőllősi & Marián 2020 — TE vs restudy present at experimentally low practice success without practice feedback but not equal to high-success magnitude; survived 2026-10-02.)
- Tutor consequence
- none yet
Attack record
7 attacks: 3 survived, 4 narrowed
2026-09-14 narrowed
- Attack
- In Roediger & Karpicke 2006 Experiment 1, the restudy-versus-test contrast after one study episode admits all idea units without an item-level availability or retrieval gate, so “encoded” is operationalized as “was studied / was on the page.”
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Roediger & Karpicke 2006
- Steelmans to
- Kill-condition prong 1 is met for the canonical seed design that motivates C0; C1 cannot stand as if those studies already verified criterion-matched retrieval before the contrast.
- Why
- Named design fact — Exp. 1 assigns restudy vs test after one study period with no item-level retrieval gate; initial free recall when given is ~70%. Claim and Bounds rewritten same turn so C1 remains the graph’s stricter accessibility precondition, with an explicit Bound that seed designs often use study-exposure. Brief rewritten. Kill withheld: C1 is still tenable as the precondition C0 needs, once the operational gap is Bounded.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-14 narrowed
- Attack
- Tulving & Pearlstone 1966 show many studied items remain available in storage yet inaccessible without cues, so “can later retrieve under criterion-matched conditions” is accessibility, not the same as “available in memory.”
- Target
- claim-text
- Source
- Tulving & Pearlstone 1966
- Steelmans to
- The living sentence conflates storage availability with cue-dependent accessibility; C1 must define success as accessibility under the practice/criterion cue set.
- Why
- Named result — cued recall recovers items missed under free recall. Claim rewritten same turn from “available in memory” to accessibility under the practice/criterion cue set; Bounds note availability≠accessibility. Brief rewritten.
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-09-14 survived
- Attack
- Karpicke & Blunt 2011 equated post-study learning via nearly identical idea production on initial concept maps (~0.78) and free recall (~0.81) before comparing retrieval practice to elaborative study, so at least one canonical design uses a stricter-than-exposure availability check.
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Karpicke & Blunt 2011
- Steelmans to
- Kill-condition prong 1 is not universal across retrieval-practice designs; some verify post-study production before the critical contrast.
- Why
- Genuine kill-condition test: this design equates post-study idea production rather than treating encoding as page exposure alone. Prong 1 does not fire universally. Claim field unchanged; prior Bounds on seed-design exposure gates stand.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-14 survived
- Attack
- Rowland 2014 finds no significant testing-versus-restudy effect when initial retrieval success is ≤50% (g ≈ 0.03) but significant effects at higher success, so C0’s contrast does not appear equally when the stricter availability/retrieval test fails.
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Rowland 2014
- Steelmans to
- Kill-condition prong 2 fails — the retrieval-over-restudy advantage shrinks or vanishes when initial retrieval success is low.
- Why
- Genuine kill-condition test: meta-analytic moderator shows nonsignificant testing effect at ≤50% initial success. Prong 2 (“appears equally when stricter test fails”) not met. Claim unchanged.
- Rewrite
- none
2026-09-14 narrowed
- Attack
- Morris, Bransford & Franks 1977 transfer-appropriate processing implies encoding success is relative to a retrieval task, so “encoded” under C1 is criterion-relative rather than an absolute state of the memory trace independent of the cue set.
- Target
- bound
- Source
- Morris, Bransford & Franks 1977
- Steelmans to
- C1’s match-to-practice-criterion clause must Bound that encoding success is defined relative to the practice/criterion task, not as task-free storage strength.
- Why
- Named TAP result. Bounds rewritten same turn to state criterion-relativity explicitly; Claim field already used “cue conditions that match the practice criterion” from cycle 1 — Bounds now pin that reading. Brief living sentence unchanged (already accessibility-under-cue-set). Status remains weakened.
- Rewrite
- claim-field
2026-10-01 narrowed
- Attack
- When prior study is reduced so practice retrieval success falls to ~0.22, retrieval with corrective feedback still beats equal-time restudy at a ~48 h test by as much as when practice success is ~0.55, so C0's retrieval-over-restudy effect appears equally when the stricter accessibility test fails for most items.
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2022 | DOI 10.3758/s13421-021-01236-4
- Steelmans to
- Kill-condition prong 2 is met under feedback — TE vs restudy is experimentally independent of practice success lowered via prior study, contrary to Rowland's correlational ≤50% moderator and answering open question 5.
- Why
- Nightly-attacks 2026-10-01 04:11 Europe/Stockholm. Full OA text verified (eScholarship CC BY). Exp. 1 training success 0.217 (1×) vs 0.55 (4×); final restudy 0.238/0.411 vs test 0.404/0.601; Training×Repetition F(1,93)=0.0064, p=0.91. Exp. 3 training 0.231 vs 0.510; final restudy 0.286/0.429 vs test 0.434/0.60; interaction p=0.42. Genuine kill-condition test with restudy arm; prong 2 fires under corrective feedback. Claim and Bounds rewritten same turn: accessibility remains the definition of encoding success, but is scoped as stricter than what C0's delayed contrast requires when feedback is given; What-would-kill updated (remaining threat: same pattern without feedback, or collapse of accessibility to mere exposure/feedback). Brief rewritten. Status remains weakened. Distinct from Chan 2024 (no restudy) and from Rowland 2014 survive (opposite force).
- Rewrite
- claim-field+brief
2026-10-02 survived
- Attack
- When practice success is experimentally lowered to ~25–29% with no practice feedback via a single prior study, retrieval still beats restudy at a 1-week first final (d = 0.43) but by far less than when practice success is ~76–80% (d = 1.71), so C0's retrieval-over-restudy effect does not appear equally at experimentally low practice success without corrective feedback.
- Target
- kill-condition
- Source
- Racsmány, Szőllősi & Marián 2020 | DOI 10.3758/s13421-020-01041-5
- Steelmans to
- Kill-condition residual prong 2 (no-feedback experimental case left after Gupta 2022) fails — TE vs restudy is present at low no-feedback success but not equal across experimentally manipulated success levels; without feedback, accessibility still matters for the size of C0's contrast.
- Why
- Nightly-attacks 2026-10-02 04:13 Europe/Stockholm. Full OA CC BY text verified (Europe PMC PMC7498445). Exp. 1 (n=29, 1× prior study, no practice feedback): practice success 25.3–28.7%; first final test > restudy t(28)=2.29, p=.03, d=0.43 (Fig. 3: ~23% vs ~16%). Exp. 2 (n=30, 3×): practice 66.1–75.0%; first final TE d=1.33. Exp. 3 (n=24, 6×): practice 76.1–80.9%; first final TE d=1.71 (Fig. 3: ~61% vs ~28%). Genuine kill-condition test of the residual no-feedback equality prong with restudy arm; kill fails because TE does not appear equally. Distinct from Gupta 2022 (feedback, equal TE), Chan 2024 (no restudy), Rowland 2014 (correlational ≤50%), and from the reversal-after-final-feedback framing not emitted 2026-10-01. Claim field unchanged; Bounds and What-would-kill note the survive and drop the answered residual. Status remains weakened.
- Rewrite
- none
Linked sources
9 linked sources (4 supports, 5 limits)
Supports (4)
Limits (5)
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.