Syntes: McCarter, Huber & Cowell (2025) — no visual TE for novel meaningless objects

Källa: McCarter, A. C., Huber, D. E., & Cowell, R. A. (2025). No evidence of a visual testing effect for novel, meaningless objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001430

Metadata

• ID: LEARN-011
• Tier: RCT / multi-experiment
• N / design: six within-subjects experiments; novel meaningless outline×fill objects; visual cued-recall practice with feedback vs restudy; filler or multi-day delay; final cued recall + recognition
• Population: university students
• Subject: Does retrieval practice beat restudy for asemantic novel visual materials?

Finding

1. Across six experiments, no testing effect: restudy ≥ retrieval; in several experiments restudy was significantly better on final recall and/or recognition.
2. Heavy-handed attempts (delay, whole-object feedback, equated lure exposure, drawing as overt retrieval) still failed to produce TE > restudy.
3. Aligns with Ferreira & Wimber (2023, DOI 10.1037/xlm0001248): TE for meaningful objects / word–object pairs, absent or reversed for word–squiggle / low-semantic visual materials.
4. Forces a Does-not-transfer-to bound on C0 for novel meaningless abstract visual materials lacking preexisting semantic scaffolding — does not kill the linguistic/prose main contrast.

Limits

Part-to-part visual associations; schematic 2D stimuli; not classroom prose. Authors discuss semantic-content, novelty, and paradigm-fit accounts.

This claim dies if …

Replicated delayed design on novel meaningless visuals where retrieval-with-feedback reliably beats equal-time restudy under encoding-succeeded conditions.

Links

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001430
• PMC: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12870414/
• OSF: https://osf.io/57jsv/
• Related: Ferreira & Wimber 2023 DOI 10.1037/xlm0001248