Repetition With Pre-exposure Preview Priming Review and Revising

Learning strategy

Distributed practice (also known as spaced repetition, the spacing effect or spaced practice) is a learning strategy, where practice is broken upwards into a number of short sessions – over a longer menses of time. Humans and animals learn items in a list more than effectively when they are studied in several sessions spread out over a long period of time, rather than studied repeatedly in a short period of fourth dimension, a phenomenon called the spacing effect. The opposite, massed practice, consists of fewer, longer grooming sessions and is more often than not a less effective method of learning. For example, when studying for an exam, dispersing your studying more frequently over a larger menstruum of time will result in more constructive learning than intense study the night before.^{[ citation needed ]}

History [edit]

Influential German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus first observed the effect of distributed learning, and published his findings in Retentiveness: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Using himself every bit a subject, Ebbinghaus studied lists of nonsense syllables to control for misreckoning variables such every bit prior cognition, assuasive him to discover the spacing result and serial position effect.^[1]

A more than recent study that researched the effects of distributed practice was washed by Alan Baddeley and Longman in 1978. They researched the effectiveness of distributed do by instruction postmen how to type using a new organization on a typewriter and comparing massed and spaced learning schedules. Baddeley found that although massed practice would seem a more effective learning method because the participants would exist able to larn the fabric in fewer days, the postmen who were taught using shorter sessions stretched over multiple days learned the cloth better than those who had the longer training sessions. Those who learned how to type with shorter learning sessions, spaced over more days ended upwardly with more than accurate and quicker typing.^[2]

Methodology [edit]

Multiple psychological functions are responsible for the benign effects of distributed practice. The nigh prevalent of these are procedural learning, priming effects, and expanding retrieval.

Procedural learning [edit]

Procedural learning is the deed of repeating a complex activity over and over once again, until all of the relevant neural systems work together to automatically produce the activeness.^[3] Distributed practice is the most efficient method of procedural learning^{[ citation needed ]}. By equally distributing the amount of practise of a given activeness over a period of fourth dimension, y'all volition increase the efficiency of learning that skill.

Priming [edit]

Priming is an effect where an initial (often cursory) exposure to a stimulus influences its subsequent recall or perception. This event is most notable when dealing with semantic noesis, merely is also applicable to the conquering of general skills.^[4] With regards to distributed practice, increasing the amount of do when learning will effect in an increased priming consequence for subsequent practice sessions. This causes an increase in memory recall, which is equivalent to an increase in learning. This helps explain why equally distributing your practice sessions, rather than massing them into ane session, allows for greater learning.

Expanding rehearsal [edit]

Expanding rehearsal refers to a learning schedule wherein items are initially tested later on a brusk delay, with pre-test delay gradually increasing across subsequent trials.^[five] This phenomenon relies on the strength of the consolidated retentiveness in order to efficiently increase success and learning. Memories that were poorly consolidated through inefficient ways of practice will be harder to recall, and will reduce the learning achieved through expanding retrieval. Distributed exercise directly influences the efficiency of expanding call up, every bit information technology provides the strongest footing for memory consolidation, from which to draw needed information.

Theories [edit]

Costless recollect and cued-memory tasks [edit]

Dissimilar theories explicate the spacing effect in costless recall and in explicit cued-retentiveness tasks. Robert Greene^[6] proposed a two-factor account of the spacing effect. The spacing event in complimentary recollect tasks is accounted for by the study-phase retrieval account. Considering free recollect is sensitive to contextual associations, spaced items benefit from boosted encoding of contextual data. Thus, the 2d occurrence of an item in a list reminds the learner of the kickoff occurrence of the same item and of the contextual features surrounding that item. When items are distributed, different contextual information is encoded with each presentation, whereas for massed items, the difference in context is relatively modest. This leads to more retrieval cues being encoded with spaced than with massed items, leading to improved recall.

Cued-memory tasks (for example, recognition memory, and frequency estimation tasks) rely more on item information and less on contextual information. Greene^[half-dozen] proposed that the spacing consequence is due to the increased corporeality of voluntary rehearsal of spaced items. This is supported by findings that the spacing effect is not found when items are studied through incidental learning.

Semantic analysis and priming [edit]

Research has also shown reliable spacing effects in cued recall tasks under incidental learning atmospheric condition, where semantic assay is encouraged through orienting tasks.^{[7] [8]} Bradford Challis establish a spacing effect for target words after the words were incidentally analyzed semantically. However, no spacing effect was plant when the target words were shallowly encoded using a graphemic study task. This suggests that semantic priming underlies the spacing effect in cued-retentiveness tasks.

When items are presented in a massed fashion, the first occurrence of the target to be memorized, semantically primes the mental representation of that target, such that when the 2nd occurrence appears directly after the commencement, there is a reduction in its semantic processing. Semantic priming wears off after a period of time,^[9] which is why there is less semantic priming of the second occurrence of a spaced particular. Thus, on the semantic priming account, the 2d presentation is more than strongly primed, and receives less semantic processing when the repetitions are massed, compared to when presentations are spaced over short lags.^[7] This semantic priming mechanism provides spaced words with more extensive processing than massed words, producing the spacing effect.

Implications with nonsense stimuli [edit]

From this explanation of the spacing issue, it follows that this effect should not occur with nonsense stimuli that practice not have a semantic representation in memory. A number of studies have demonstrated that the semantically-based, repetition priming arroyo cannot explain spacing effects in recognition retentiveness for stimuli, such as unfamiliar faces, and non-words that are not acquiescent to semantic analysis.^{[10] [8]} Cornoldi and Longoni have even found a significant spacing effect in a forced-choice recognition memory task when nonsense shapes were used as target stimuli.^{[eleven] [ten]} Russo proposed that with cued memory of unfamiliar stimuli, a short-term perceptually-based repetition priming mechanism supports the spacing result. When unfamiliar stimuli are used as targets in a cued-memory task, retentiveness relies on the retrieval of structural-perceptual data almost the targets. When the items are presented in a massed fashion, the starting time occurrence primes its second occurrence, leading to reduced perceptual processing of the second presentation. Brusk-term repetition-priming effects for nonwords are reduced when the lag betwixt prime and target trials is reduced,^[12] thus information technology follows that more all-encompassing perceptual processing is given to the second occurrence of spaced items relative to that given to massed items. Hence, nonsense items with massed presentation receive less extensive perceptual processing than spaced items; thus, the retrieval of those items is impaired in cued-retentiveness tasks.

Coinciding with this view, Russo likewise demonstrated that changing the font in which repeated presentations of nonwords were presented reduced the brusque-term perceptual priming of those stimuli, specially for massed items. Upon a recognition memory test, there was no spacing outcome found for the nonwords presented in different fonts during report. These results support the hypothesis that brusque-term perceptual priming is the machinery that supports the spacing effects in cued-memory tasks when unfamiliar stimuli are used as targets.^[8]

Furthermore, when the font was changed between repeated presentations of words in the study phase, in that location was no reduction of the spacing effect. This resistance to the font manipulation is expected with this two-cistron business relationship, as semantic processing of words at study determines performance on a afterward memory test, and the font manipulation is irrelevant to this form of processing.

Mammarella, Russo, & Avons^[13] also demonstrated that changing the orientation of faces between repeated presentations served to eliminate the spacing effect. Unfamiliar faces practice not have stored representations in retentiveness, thus the spacing outcome for these stimuli would be a result of perceptual priming. Changing orientation served to modify the physical appearance of the stimuli, thus reducing the perceptual priming at the second occurrence of the face when presented in a massed mode. This led to equal memory for faces presented in massed and spaced fashions, hence eliminating the spacing upshot.^[viii]

Encoding variability [edit]

Encoding variability and assumes the benefits of spacing announced because spaced presentations lead to a wider variety of encoded contextual elements. Additionally, the variable encodings are thought to be a direct result of contextual variations which are not present in massed repetitions.

To test the encoding variability theory, Bird, Nicholson and Ringer (1978)^[fourteen] presented subjects with discussion lists that either had massed or spaced repetitions. Subjects were asked to perform diverse "orienting tasks", tasks which require the subject to make a uncomplicated judgement well-nigh the list item (i.east. pleasant or unpleasant, agile or passive). Subjects either performed the same task for each occurrence of a discussion or a different task for each occurrence. If the encoding variability theory were truthful, then different orienting tasks ought to provide variable encoding, even for massed repetitions, resulting in a higher rate of recall for massed repetitions than would be expected. The results showed no such effect, providing stiff evidence against the importance of encoding variability.

Report-phase retrieval [edit]

The written report-phase retrieval theory has gained a lot of traction recently.^{[ citation needed ]} This theory assumes that the start presentation of an detail is retrieved at the fourth dimension of the second presentation. This leads to an elaboration of the first memory trace. Massed presentations exercise not yield advantages because the first trace is active at the time of the second, so it is not retrieved or elaborated on.

Practical applications [edit]

Advertizing [edit]

The spacing outcome and its underlying mechanisms have important applications to the world of advertising. For case, the spacing effect dictates that it is non an effective advertising strategy to present the same commercial back-to-back (massed repetition). If encoding variability is an of import mechanism of the spacing consequence, then a skilful advertizement strategy might include a distributed presentation of different versions of the same ad. Appleton-Knapp, Bjork and Wickens (2005)^[xv] examined the effects of spacing on advertising. They constitute that spaced repetitions of advertisements are more than affected past study-phase retrieval processes than encoding variability. They likewise found that at long intervals, varying the presentation of a given ad is not effective in producing higher recall rates amongst subjects (every bit predicted by variable encoding). Despite this finding, recognition is not affected by variations in an advert at long intervals.

Individuals with memory deficits [edit]

Research shows individuals with traumatic brain injury often suffer retentiveness deficits due to impairment in the acquisition phase. They take far more than trials to achieve a predetermined learning benchmark, just having learned something, their ability to think it is comparable to healthy controls.^[16] It is therefore important to assist them in acquiring new skills and memories. Relatively piddling research has been done examining how learning strategies which benefit healthy people utilize to individuals with TBI.^{[ citation needed ]} Goverover et al.^{[ citation needed ]} examined the awarding of the spacing result in improving functional tasks, such as route learning. Initial functioning of the task was meliorate for massed practice, but delayed call back was amend for information learned using distributed do. The longer the delay, the greater the spacing result. This shows distributed practice has a role in rehabilitation, particularly in helping patients with TBI retain new skills.

In clinical settings, using word lists, the spacing effect has proven effective with populations of people with memory deficits, including people with amnesia, multiple sclerosis, and TBI.^[16]

Long-term retentivity [edit]

Non much attending has been given to the study of the spacing effect in long-term retention tests.^{[ citation needed ]} Shaughnessy^[17] found that the spacing effect is not robust for twice-presented items after a 24-hour delay in testing. The spacing effect is present, nevertheless, for items presented four or six times and tested after a 24-hour filibuster. This seems like a foreign effect and Shaughnessy interprets it as evidence for a multi-factorial account of the spacing outcome.

The long-term effects of spacing accept also been assessed in the context of learning a foreign language. Bahrick et al.^[18] examined the retentivity of newly learned foreign vocabulary words over a 9-year catamenia, varying both the number of sessions and the space betwixt them. Both the number of relearning sessions and the number of days in between each session have a major impact on retention (the repetition effect and the spacing effect), yet the two variables do non collaborate with each other. For all iii difficulty rankings of the foreign words, recall was highest for the 56-day interval as opposed to a 28-day or a 14-day interval. Additionally, 13 sessions spaced 56 days apart yielded comparable memory to 26 sessions with a 14-day interval. These findings have implications for educational practices. Curricula rarely provide opportunities for periodic retrieval of previously caused cognition. Without spaced repetitions, students are more than likely to forget strange linguistic communication vocabulary.

Learning systems [edit]

Distributed learning has been shown to be an effective means to better learning, and has been applied to many different methods of learning, including the Pimsleur method and the Leitner system.

Pimsleur method [edit]

The Pimsleur method, or Pimsleur language learning arrangement is a language acquisition system adult by Paul Pimsleur which is sold commercially. The Pimsleur method is based on 4 principles: graduated interval recall, principle of anticipation, core vocabulary, and organic learning. The principle of graduated interval recall is based on the concept of distributed learning, where the learner is presented the information to be learned with gradual increases in the length of fourth dimension between presentation. It uses the thought that learning tin can be optimized with a schedule of practice.^[xix]

Leitner [edit]

The Leitner system is a widely used method of efficiently using flashcards that was proposed by the German language scientific discipline announcer Sebastian Leitner in the 1970s. Information technology exemplifies the principle of spaced repetition, where cards are reviewed at increasing intervals.^{[ commendation needed ]}

In this method, cards are sorted into separate boxes based on how well you lot know the material on that card. If you succeed in recalling the reply on the bill of fare, it is moved into the adjacent box, and if you fail information technology is moved into a previous box (if in that location is one). The further into the chain of boxes a carte goes, the longer you must await before attempting to recall its solution. The Leitner method is another example of studying strategies that take advantage of distributed practice and its associated principles, in this case spaced repetition.^{[ citation needed ]}

Anatomy of learning [edit]

The central biological constructs involved in whatsoever kind of learning are those essential to retentivity formation, particularly those involved with semantic knowledge: the hippocampus and the surrounding Rhinal cortices.^{[ citation needed ]} Each plays an important role in learning, and therefore in learning techniques such every bit distributed practice.^{[ citation needed ]}

Hippocampus [edit]

The hippocampus has long been considered the cardinal hub of all retentiveness^{[ commendation needed ]}, and therefore responsible for a large bulk of learning. Located in the ventral-medial temporal area of the encephalon, its importance regarding the consolidation of new memories, and thus the learning of new things, was demonstrated by the infamous case of HM, a human who had both medial temporal regions of his encephalon removed. This resulted in his inability to form new long-term memories.

The location of the human hippocampus

Despite the overwhelming show provided by HM'south case for the centrality of the hippocampus to memory and learning, he was still able to benefit from the furnishings of distributed exercise with regards to certain tasks. During HM's formal assessment, he displayed notable improvement on tasks regarding unconscious learning such as the mirror-drawing exam, where the patient must trace a star past watching their hand in a mirror.^[20] His improvement in this and other tasks illustrates that the hippocampus is not essential for all forms of learning, including the ability to benefit distributed practice. Without it, however, improvements are limited. For case, he displayed improvement in the Block-Tapping Memory-Span test, but only to a maximum of five blocks,^[21] implying his power to amend through practice continued to exist, merely that it does not supersede impairment to other aspects of long-term memory formation that he suffered later on his surgery.

Distributed learning's effectiveness appears to rely more on 1's working retentivity rather than one'southward ability to form long term memories. In studies involving the Morris h2o maze task,^[22] rats with hippocampal lesions displaying major reductions in working retentivity show very little improvement on the test they are working on, despite their supposedly intact power to form long term memories. This shows that the effects of practice can exist essentially removed through reduction in working retentivity ability

Rhinal cortex [edit]

The rhinal cortex is an surface area of the encephalon surrounding the hippocampus. Multiple animate being trials on different species take shown information technology to be as, if not more important for the beingness of multiple different types of retention and learning, than the hippocampus.^{[ citation needed ]} It is divided into 2 parts, the perirhinal cortex and the entorhinal cortex. Distributed practise exists to a limited caste in animals after the removal of the hippocampus, if the Rhinal cortices are un-damaged.

Location of entorhinal cortex in the human brain

In summary, impairment to either the hippocampus or the rhinal cortices, which upshot in memory deficits in different areas, also results in a limitation of the upshot of distributed practice on learning and retentiveness consolidation, but never completely eliminates it.^{[ citation needed ]} This shows that the ability to better learning through distributed do is non wholly dependent on either the hippocampus or the rhinal cortices only is dependent on the interaction betwixt working memory abilities and the ability to grade long-term memories, whether semantic or episodic, witting or subconscious.^[23]

See also [edit]

• Spaced learning

References [edit]

1. ^ Ebbinghaus,H., Ruger, H.A., Bussenius, C.Eastward. (1913) Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology
2. ^ Baddeley, A.D., Longman, D. J. A., (1978) "The Influence of Length and Frequency of Training Sessions on the Charge per unit of Learning to Type." Ergonomics V21 No8, 627-635.
3. ^ Zimbardo, P. G., and Gerring, R. J. (1999). Psychology and life. (15th ed.).New York: Longman.
4. ^ Tulving, Endel; Daniel L. Schacter; Heather A. Stark (1982). "Priming Effects in Give-and-take Fragment Completion are contained of Recognition Retentiveness". Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Noesis 8 (four).
5. ^ Baddeley, A. D., Man Memory: Theory and Practice", 1997
6. ^ ^{a b} Greene, Robert 50.. Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a two process business relationship. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition15. 3 (May 1989): 371-377
7. ^ ^{a b} Challis, Bradford H.. (Mar 1993). Spacing effects on cued-memory tests depend on level of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition xix. 2, 389-396.
8. ^ ^{a b c d} Russo, Riccardo; Mammarella, Nicola; Avons, South E. Toward a Unified Account of Spacing Furnishings in Explicit Cued-Memory Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28. 5 (2002 Sept): 819-829.
9. ^ Kirsner, Kim; Smith, Marilyn C; Lockhart, R Due south; King, M L; Jain, 1000. The Bilingual Dictionary: Language-Specific Units in an Integrated NetworkJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior23. 4 (1984 Aug.): 519-539.
10. ^ ^{a b} Russo, Riccardo; Parkin, Alan J.; Taylor, Sandra R.; Wilks, Jacqueline. Revising current ii-procedure accounts of spacing effects in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Retention, and Cognition24. 1 (Jan 1998): 161-172.
11. ^ Cornoldi, C., Longoni, A., (1997). The MP-DP effect and the influence of distinct repetitions on recognition of random shapes. Italian Journal of Psychology, four(i),65-76.
12. ^ McKone, E (1995). Short-term implicit retention for words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Noesis 21(5).
13. ^ Mammarella, Northward., Russo, R., & Avons, S. E. (2002). Spacing effects in cued-memory tasks for unfamiliar faces and nonwords. Memory & cognition, xxx, 1238-1251.
14. ^ Resistance of the Spacing Event to Variations in Encoding Charles P. Bird, Angus J. Nicholson and Susan Ringer The American Journal of Psychology Vol. 91, No. 4 (Dec. 1978), pp. 713-721 Published past: Academy of Illinois Press Article Stable URL: https://world wide web.jstor.org/stable/1421519
15. ^ Examining the Spacing Effect in Advert: Encoding Variability, Retrieval Processes, and Their Interaction Sara L. Appleton‐Knapp, Robert A. Bjork and Thomas D. Wickens The Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 32, No. 2 (September 2005), pp. 266-276 Published by: The Academy of Chicago Press Article DOI: 10.1086/432236 Article Stable URL: https://world wide web.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/432236
16. ^ ^{a b} Goverover, Y., Arango-Lasprilla, C.J., Hillary, F.G., Chiaravalloti, Due north., De Luca, J. (2009). Awarding of the spacing effect to improve learning and memory for functional tasks on traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 3 (5), 543.
17. ^ Long-Term {{subst:lc:Retention}} and the Spacing Effect in Free-Remember and Frequency Judgments John J. Shaughnessy The American Journal of Psychology Vol. ninety, No. 4 (Dec. 1977), pp. 587-598 Published past: University of Illinois Press Article Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1421733
18. ^ Maintenance of Foreign Language Vocabulary and the Spacing Effect Harry P. Bahrick, Lorraine E. Bahrick, Audrey Southward. Bahrick and Phyllis E. Bahrick Psychological Science Vol. four, No. 5 (Sep. 1993), pp. 316-321 Published past: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Association for Psychological Scientific discipline Article Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063054
19. ^ Anderson, J. R., Pavlik, P. I. (2008), "Using a Model to Compute the Optimal Schedule of Do" Journal of Experimental Psychology: Practical 14(2), 101-117.
20. ^ Milner, B., Memory disturbances subsequently bilateral hippocampal lesions, 1965.
21. ^ Milner, B., Interhemispheric differences in the localization of psychological processes in homo 1978
22. ^ Baddeley, A., Anderson, M., Michael, W. Retentivity 2009 pp 86-87
23. ^ Goverover, Y., Arango-Lasprilla, C.J., Hillary, F.Thou., Chiaravalloti, N., De Luca, J. (2009). Awarding of the spacing effect to ameliorate learning and memory for functional tasks on traumatic brain injury: a pilot report. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, three (five), 543.

glydehadel1969.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_practice

Share this post