Syntes: Higham et al. (2023) — spaced restudy can trump retrieval under concurrent memory ratings

Källa: Higham, P. A., Fastrich, G. M., Potts, R., Murayama, K., Pickering, J. S., & Hadwin, J. A. (2023). Spaced Retrieval Practice: Can Restudying Trump Retrieval? Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09809-2

Verified numbers (full OA text)

• Design: Initial study of 40 Swahili–English pairs; three spaced learning-practice sessions (LPSs) with 2-day ISIs; final cued recall 2 days after last LPS. Retrieval trials: cue → attempt → intact-pair feedback. Restudy: intact pair.
• Exp 1 (n=259 analysed): Concurrent memory rating on every trial. Final recall: restudy M=0.74 > overt retrieval M=0.65 (dz=0.41) and covert M=0.63 (dz=0.49).
• Exp 2 (n=63): Rating present → restudy > retrieval (dz=0.36, p=.003). Rating absent → descriptive retrieval > restudy (ns, dz=0.20). Positive reactivity on restudy; negative on retrieval.
• Exp 3 (n=77): No ratings. Retrieval > restudy at all practice frequencies (final TTT M=0.65 vs RRR M=0.55, dz=0.44).

Role for C0

Genuine boundary: when concurrent accuracy/memory ratings (JOL-like) are required during spaced practice with feedback, equal-time restudy can beat retrieval on a delayed test. Without ratings the standard testing effect returns. Does not kill the main delayed contrast under ordinary practice without concurrent ratings.