Optimizing Memory Retention with Cognitive Models

When individuals learn facts (e.g., foreign language vocabulary) over multiple sessions, the durability of learning is strongly influenced by the temporal distribution of study (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006). Computational models have been developed to explain this phenomenon known as the distributed practice effect. These models predict the accuracy of recall following a particular study schedule and retention interval. To the degree that the models embody mechanisms of human memory, they can also be used to determine the spacing of study that maximizes retention. We examine two memory models (Pavlik & Anderson, 2005; Mozer, Pashler, Lindsey, & Vul, submitted) that provide differing explanations of the distributed practice effect. Although both models fit experimental data, we show that they make robust and opposing predictions concerning the optimal spacing of study sessions. The Pavlik and Anderson model robustly predicts that contracting spacing is best over a range of model parameters and retention intervals; that is, with three study sessions, the model suggests that the lag between sessions one and two should be larger than the lag between sessions two and three. In contrast, the Mozer et al. model predicts equal or expanding spacing is best for most material and retention intervals. The limited experimental data pertinent to this disagreement appear to be consistent with the latter prediction. The strong contrast between the models calls for further empirical work to evaluate their opposing predictions.

[1]  A. Glenberg Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms , 1976 .

[2]  Thomas D. Wickens,et al.  The Effects of the Spacing of Test Trials and Study Trials in Paired‐association Learning , 1989 .

[3]  Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers,et al.  Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: application of the SAM model , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  H. Pashler,et al.  Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  L. S. Tsai The relation of retention to the distribution of relearning. , 1927 .

[6]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Optimizing distributed practice: theoretical analysis and practical implications. , 2009, Experimental psychology.

[7]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Practice and Forgetting Effects on Vocabulary Memory: An Activation-Based Model of the Spacing Effect , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  P. Foos,et al.  Effects of spacing and spacing patterns in free recall , 1974 .

[9]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning , 1978 .

[10]  Edward Vul,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Spacing Effects in Learning A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention , 2022 .

[11]  Philip I. Pavlik,et al.  Understanding and applying the dynamics of test practice and study practice , 2007 .

[12]  J. Staddon,et al.  A tuned-trace theory of interval-timing dynamics. , 2002, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  John R Anderson,et al.  Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Ed Vul,et al.  Predicting the Optimal Spacing of Study: A Multiscale Context Model of Memory , 2009, NIPS.