Remembering facilitates future remembering. This benefit of practicing by active retrieval, as compared to more passive relearning, is known as the testing effect and is one of the most robust findings in the memory literature. It has typically been assessed using verbal materials such as word pairs, sentences, or educational texts. We here investigate if memory for visual materials equally benefits from retrieval-mediated learning. Based on cognitive and neuroscientific theories, we hypothesize that testing effects will be limited to meaningful visual images that can be related to preexisting knowledge. In a series of four experiments, we systematically varied the type of material (meaningless "squiggle" shapes vs. meaningful object images) and the format of the test used to probe memory (a visually driven alternative forced-choice test vs. a remember/know recognition test). Within each experiment, we assessed the effects of practice type (retrieval or restudy) and the delay of the final test (immediate vs. 1 week) on the resulting practice benefits. Abstract shapes never showed a significant testing benefit, irrespective of test format. Meaningful object images did benefit from testing, particularly at long delays, and with a test format probing the recollective component of recognition memory. Together, our results indicate that retrieval can facilitate the recollection of visual images when they represent meaningful semantic units. This pattern of results is predicted by cognitive and neurobiologically motivated theories proposing that retrieval's benefits emerge through spreading activation in semantic networks, producing more easily accessible and longer-lasting memory traces. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
How this agent works
It searches only this paper’s licensed source text, returns matching passages, and refuses to invent an answer when the record is silent.
- Original journal
- Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
- Published
- 2023-06-08
- DOI
- 10.1037/xlm0001248
- Open record
- PMC10519161
The original authors and American Psychological Association do not endorse this journal or its agent. Verify findings in the canonical article before making consequential decisions.