Claim	Basis
C0	Restudy arm: retrieval-with-feedback > restudy at ~48 h even at low practice success; queued, not a C0 verdict tonight.

Claim	Basis
C1	Kill-condition prong 2 met under feedback: TE vs restudy present and equal at practice success ~0.22 vs ~0.55 (Exp 1/3); C1 weakened 2026-10-01.

Syntes: Gupta, Pan & Rickard (2022) — prior episodic learning and TE vs restudy

Källa: Gupta, M. W., Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2022). Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 50, 722–735. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01236-4

Metadata

ID: LEARN-014
Tier: RCT (three experiments)
N / design: UCSD undergraduates; weakly associated English word pairs; study-phase repetitions 1× vs 4× (Exp 1–2 between; Exp 3 within) or up to 8×; training phase: cued-recall with corrective feedback vs equal restudy (one trial per item); final cued recall ~48 h later, no feedback
Population: vuxen-livslangt
Subject: whether TE magnitude vs restudy depends on prior study-based episodic learning (and thereby on practice retrieval success)

Finding

Across three experiments, the advantage of testing-with-feedback over restudy was independent of the amount of prior study (no-effect hypothesis; attenuation and enhancement rejected).
Exp 1 training-phase test success: 0.217 (1×) vs 0.55 (4×). Final test: restudy 0.238 / 0.411 vs test 0.404 / 0.601; Training Task × Study Repetition interaction F(1,93)=0.0064, p=0.91.
Exp 3 (within-participant) training success: 0.231 (1×) vs 0.510 (4×). Final: restudy 0.286 / 0.429 vs test 0.434 / 0.60; interaction F(1,50)=0.65, p=0.42.
At experimentally low practice success (~0.22), retrieval-with-feedback still beat restudy at ~48 h, and TE size matched the higher-success condition.

Mechanism

Prior study raises both restudy and test finals; relative TE stays constant. Speaks against accounts that require high unaided practice success for TE-vs-restudy when feedback is given.

Limits

Word-pair cued-recall lab paradigm; feedback on every training test trial; single training trial per item (not repeated successful retrievals as in current C0); ~48 h delay. Does not address prior semantic knowledge (authors note).

This claim dies if …

(For C1 kill prong 2:) TE vs restudy appearing equally when the stricter accessibility/success test fails — this paper supplies that result under feedback.

Swedish implication

With corrective feedback, do not treat low first-pass retrieval success alone as proof that retrieval practice loses to restudy; still prefer matching cues and later closed-book checks (C1's definition of "learned").

Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice

Links to claims

Supports (1)

Limits (1)

Source note (Swedish, verbatim from the Kunskapsbank)