
==== Front
NPJ Sci Learn
NPJ Sci Learn
NPJ Science of Learning
2056-7936
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39251700
268
10.1038/s41539-024-00268-0
Perspective
A working memory dependent dual process model of the testing effect
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4925-6069
Zheng Yicong 1
Shi Aike 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6021-9889
Liu Xiaonan L. xliu@cuhk.edu.hk

2
1 grid.27860.3b 0000 0004 1936 9684 Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA USA
2 grid.10784.3a 0000 0004 1937 0482 Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
9 562 2 2024
20 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This Perspective article expands on a working memory-dependent dual-process model, originally proposed by Zheng et al.1, to elucidate individual differences in the testing effect. This model posits that the testing effect comprises two processes: retrieval-attempt and post-retrieval re-encoding. We substantiate this model with empirical evidence and propose future research. This model invites further studies on the trade-off between testing benefits and WM demands, facilitating the development of personalized educational practices.

Subject terms

Human behaviour
Human behaviour
Cognitive control
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Imagine a scenario where a group of students are taking the same quiz as a practice for their final exam. After the quiz, some students might get a deeper understanding of the material, while some might find the exam more challenging and didn’t benefit from it as much as others. It is always intriguing to educators why individuals gain massively different outcomes given the same instructions, assignments, and exams. Here, we focus on individual differences in one well-established phenomenon in education—the Testing Effect. The existing evidence of the testing effect traces back to as early as 1917 when Gates found that recitation produces a better memory outcome than “read-only”2. That is, when people are prompted to reproduce learned materials, testing benefits memory more than re-learning materials3–5. Numerous empirical studies have confirmed the promotion of learning by various forms of testing in both laboratories6–8 and classroom environments9–12. Moreover, researchers have conducted a large number of studies to explore the influencing factors of the testing effect, such as the form of testing13–15, attention allocation16, and whether there is feedback after the testing17.

Understanding individual differences in the testing effect is particularly important in education (quoting Confucius, “teach students in accordance with their aptitude”). However, an agreement on how individual differences affect the benefits of testing has not been reached. For instance, previous research has found that tests are instrumental in improving the performance of later recall irrespective of prior knowledge18–20 and personality characteristics21, whereas people with relatively low-level intelligence can fail to benefit from taking retrieval practice when the task is difficult22,23 and students with higher academic achievements benefit more from retrieval practice24. Moreover, the controversy over the applicability of the testing effect across different individuals reached its peak when it comes to working memory capacity (WMC) (Table 1). Some studies showed that people with lower WMC benefit more from testing25,26, some studies showed the opposite pattern that people with higher WMC benefit more from testing1, and some studies did not find a relationship between WMC and the testing effect27–29.Table 1 Studies that examined the effects of individual differences in working memory capacity on the testing effect

Study	Individual difference factors	Stimuli	Feedback	Main findings	
Agarwal et al. 25	WMC	General knowledge facts	Manipulated	Participants with lower WMC showed larger testing effect with feedback	
Bertilsson et al. 21	WMC Personality	Swahili word pairs	Yes	WMC did not predict the testing effect	
Bertilsson et al. 27	WMC Personality	Swahili word pairs	Yes	WMC did not predict the testing effect	
Brewer & Unsworth28	WMC Gf Intelligence	English word pairs	Yes	WMC did not predict the testing effect	
Minear et al. 22	WMC Gf Intelligence	Swahili -English word pairs	Yes	WMC did not predict the testing effect	
Tse & Pu26	WMC Test anxiety	Swahili -English word pairs	No	Interaction between trait test anxiety and WMC: the testing effect decreased with test anxiety for participants with lower WMC, but it did not correlate with test anxiety for those with higher WMC	
Tse et al. 43	WMC Test Anxiety	General knowledge facts	No	No interaction between WMC and trait test anxiety in the testing effect.	
Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al. 29	WMC	Concepts in a Psychology course	Yes	WMC did not predict the testing effect	
Zheng et al. 1	WMC	Image - word pairs	No	Consistent testing effect in participants with higher WMC. Testing effect only emerged in participants with lower WMC when learning low WM demanding stimuli	

Current theories of the testing effect do not consider individual differences

While multiple theoretical explanations of the testing effect have been proposed, these theories do not fully explain why some people benefit more from testing than others. Prominent theories of the testing effect can be broadly divided into two categories. The first category of theories focuses on the memory retrieval process itself, that is, the process of trying to recall information from memory. One such theory is the Transfer-Appropriate Process account30. Supposing successful recall depends on the similarity between the encoding and retrieval processes, the TAP account proposed that the insertion of tests between the initial study and the final test makes it possible for people to access the contents more readily in a later test because of the high similarity between the practice test and the final test. Another notable theory is the Elaborative Retrieval Theory31, which states that when people are tested, they must actively search their memory for the answer. This process of extracting information from memory strengthens existing retrieval pathways and may also create new ones (i.e., mediators32). As a result, testing is a more effective learning method than simply rereading material. Additionally, the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis4, grounded in the Desirable Difficulty Hypothesis33, argues that retrieval is beneficial because it imposes appropriate difficulty and requires substantial cognitive resources. This additional investment enhances memory retention. Moreover, the Episodic Context Account emphasizes that testing enables subjects to recall both the original learning context and the context of the retrieval practice phase. This dual-context memory allows for a broader search range during final tests, thereby improving recall success, as noted by Lehman et al. 34.

The other category of theories focuses on information processing after successful memory retrieval, that is, the additional processing of the obtained answer. One example is the Reconsolidation Account35,36, which argues that what promotes memory retention is not the retrieval process itself, but the reconsolidation process after information is successfully retrieved37. During this state, information can be either strengthened or interfered with38,39. When participants correctly retrieve the target or when correct feedback is provided after retrieval, memories are more likely to be strengthened due to the reexposure to the correct targets. In other words, the role of retrieval is to put memory into an unstable state, and the process after retrieval strengthens memories.

In summary, although these theories can explain many phenomena associated with testing, they cannot explain how people with different WMCs benefit differently from testing and predict when testing is the optimal learning approach.

A working memory dependent dual-process model

In this section, we elaborate on a working memory-dependent dual-process model of the testing effect designed to elucidate individual differences in WMC. This model was first introduced by Zheng et al.1 and focuses on how two temporally ordered processes, retrieval attempt, and post-retrieval re-encoding, interact with available WM resources that result in individual differences in the testing effect (Fig. 1). The “retrieval attempt” process involves the initiation of a search to find the answer to a test question. It not only serves the current retrieval but also further strengthens memories, consistent with theories such as the Elaborative Retrieval Theory. The “post-retrieval re-encoding” process pertains to the reiteration of the correct answer in WM after a successful retrieval, aligning with theories like the Reconsolidation Account.Fig. 1 The dual-process model of individual differences in the testing effect: a comparison between high and low Working Memory Capacity (WMC) groups.

The figure illustrates a cued recall task, contrasting successful retrieval practice (Test) with Restudy trials for individuals with varying WMC. Both retrieval and re-encoding processes consume available WM resources (depicted in blue), leading to an increase in memory strength (depicted in yellow). In individuals with high WMC, the Test condition offers greater benefits over Restudy due to sufficient working memory resources. Conversely, for those with low WMC, Restudy may be as effective as testing—or even outperforms testing, when WM resources are not sufficient for the re-encoding process.

The effectiveness of these two processes in memory strengthening is modulated by the available WM resources during the task. These resources are intrinsically linked to individual WMC and the WM demands of the material being memorized. In a metaphorical sense, both processes draw from the same pool of WM resources, enabling a trade-off between WM expenditure and memory fortification.

The idea of trading WM resources for memory strengthening has been quantitatively implemented in a modified Source of Activation Confusion (SAC) model1,40,41. SAC is a classic localist memory model positing spread activation within a network composed of “concept” and “episode” nodes connected by associative edges. Memory strength is delineated by base-level strength and activation level, representing the quality of the stored memory and its activation status during retrieval, respectively. Nodes activated by proactive retrieval or spreading activation from connected nodes will exhibit a high temporary activation level, thereby increasing the base-level strength.

Additionally, the SAC model quantifies the interaction between long-term memory and WM, by proposing a limited pool of WM resources. Individuals with higher WMC have greater WM resources available for diverse tasks, while those with lower WMC have fewer resources at their disposal. Node operations, including encoding and retrieval, consume these WM resources, which are subsequently replenished over time.

It is important to clarify that our model does not posit that individuals with low WMC are categorically unable to benefit from testing. Instead, the model integrates another crucial determinant: the working memory (WM) demands associated with the material being learned. According to the SAC framework, the familiarity of a memory node impacts the amount of WM resources consumed during cognitive operations such as encoding and retrieval. For instance, the process of encoding or retrieving a novel item would deplete more WM resources than would familiar items. Therefore, the model predicts that individuals with low WMC could experience limited or even negligible benefits from testing when learning materials that are unfamiliar and demanding in terms of WM resources. This is because the act of attempting to retrieve unfamiliar information could disproportionately tax their limited WM capacity, leaving insufficient resources for re-encoding. Importantly, the model predicts that they could still benefit from the testing effect when materials require WM resources that could be covered by their WMC.

Behavioral evidence supporting the model

Recent research by Zheng et al.1 provides compelling behavioral evidence that supports this dual-process model, examining the interplay between WMC and WM demands in the testing effect. Notably, the study found that individuals with high WMC exhibited the testing effect irrespective of stimulus frequency. Conversely, for individuals with low WMC, testing enhanced retention only for high-frequency stimuli; low-frequency stimuli actually yielded a negative testing effect, where restudy proved more effective than testing.

These findings corroborate the core hypothesis of our model concerning the dynamic between available WM resources and the WM demands of the task. For individuals with higher WMC, sufficient WM resources facilitated both the retrieval attempt and post-retrieval re-encoding processes, even for unfamiliar or low-frequency stimuli. However, for those with lower WMC, attempting to retrieve unfamiliar or low-frequency stimuli exhausted WM resources, preventing effective re-encoding.

Noteworthy, one potential concern with the results of Zheng et al.1 is that the observed interaction between WMC and WM demands may, in fact, be due to insufficient encoding of unfamiliar material by individuals with lower WMC, which leads to lower retrieval practice accuracy, rather than insufficient working memory resources during retrieval practice. We find this alternative hypothesis implausible for three reasons. First, in Zheng et al.1, this potential confounding was controlled by applying the same learning criteria for low- and high-frequency stimuli and regressing out the accuracy ratio between low- and high-frequency stimuli. Second, additional analyses of the data from Zheng et al. 1 by selecting only trials that were correctly retrieved during retrieval practice showed a similar pattern as including all trials. Third, and more critically, one recent study directly addressed this alternative hypothesis through a series of thorough experiments42. This study found no causal link between retrieval success and the magnitude of the testing effect. In other words, regardless of retrieval practice performance, the magnitudes of the testing effect were consistent. This study indicates that observed correlations between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect magnitudes are likely due to individual differences rather than experimental conditions.

Additional support for this model is derived from other behavioral studies. A cross-study comparison from the same research group indicates that the language in which learning materials are presented can influence the impact of individual differences on the testing effect. Tse & Pu26 identified an interaction between trait test anxiety and WMC, where individuals with lower WMC experienced a reduced testing effect when trait test anxiety was high. This effect was not observed in individuals with higher WMC, suggesting that those with higher WMC are less vulnerable to the negative influences of trait test anxiety. However, a follow-up study by Tse et al. 43 did not find a significant interaction between these variables using a similar design. A notable difference between the two studies was the language of the learning materials; the earlier study used materials in a foreign language, which likely imposed higher working memory demands than the materials in the participant’s native language used in the later study by Tse et al. 43.

Furthermore, the provision of feedback during retrieval practice appears to modulate the role of individual differences in the testing effect. Notably, Agarwal et al. 25 observed that participants with lower WMC experienced a more pronounced testing effect compared to those with higher WMC. However, this pattern was specific to the condition where feedback was provided after each retrieval practice trial. Additionally, a series of studies examining the relationship between WMC and the testing effect found no disadvantage for individuals with low WMC in terms of the magnitudes of the testing effect when feedback was provided immediately after each trial (e.g., Bertilsson et al. 21; Minear et al. 22; Table 1). These findings indicate that providing feedback and presenting the correct answer after retrieval can reduce the working memory load for participants with low WMC. By eliminating the need to maintain the retrieved answer in working memory during the post-retrieval re-encoding process, resources are freed up for memory strengthening, allowing individuals with lower WMC to benefit from testing in a manner similar to their higher WMC counterparts.

Relatedly, Tse et al. 44 discovered that, in the absence of feedback, older individuals demonstrated a negative testing effect, where restudy surpassed retrieval practice in effectiveness. However, a positive testing effect emerged when feedback was provided. This pattern is consistent across several studies, indicating that the testing effect diminishes in older adults without feedback post-retrieval, yet with feedback, older adults exhibit a comparable testing effect to that of younger adults45–48. Considering the well-documented decline in WMC among the elderly49,50, it is reasonable to hypothesize that WMC contributes to the observed interplay between age, feedback, and the testing effect. However, these studies involving aged groups should be interpreted cautiously. They provide only complementary insights into our model rather than direct evidence. The complex interplay of multiple declining functions with age means that causal relationships cannot be straightforwardly derived from these observations.

Neuroimaging evidence supporting the model

In this section, we present evidence coming from neuroimaging studies that support the two main components of the proposed model: (1) The testing effect comprises two processes, retrieval attempt and post-retrieval re-encoding; (2) These two processes consume WM resources from the same pool.

A substantial body of neuroimaging research supports the dual-process aspect of our model. For example, fMRI studies that have applied subsequent memory analyses to retrieval trials51,52 identified that regions in the left hemisphere associated with successful encoding also predicted future retention following testing. However, unique right hemisphere regions specifically predicted retention only in testing trials. These findings suggest that the act of testing engages both a process akin to encoding and a process that is unique to retrieval practice. The spatially distinct neural correlates corroborate our proposed separation between the retrieval attempt and post-retrieval re-encoding processes. Retrieval attempts may predominantly engage regions in the right hemisphere, whereas re-encoding likely activates more left-lateralized areas that are also involved in encoding. Similarly, Wang & Yang53 reported distinct involvement of the salience and executive control networks (S-ECN) and the default mode network in error monitoring during retrieval attempts and the maintenance of correct answers during post-retrieval re-encoding, respectively.

As the two processes unfold sequentially, EEG/ERP studies, with their high temporal resolution, may offer more direct evidence supporting this model. Indeed, specific time windows of ERP components during retrieval practice have been associated with the two processes. For example, Liu et al. 54 revealed that an ERP component occurring between 400 and 700 ms after the presentation of retrieval cues predicted both current and subsequent retrieval success, potentially reflecting the elaboration and strengthening that occur during retrieval attempts. Furthermore, a later component between 700 and 1000 ms was associated solely with subsequent retention, serving as a neural marker for re-encoding after a successful retrieval. Additional studies have identified temporally distinct ERP components that align with those found by Liu et al. 54. For instance, Bridge and Paller55 found that, in an object-location association task, ERP amplitudes during the 400–700 ms window were correlated with the accuracy of the recalled location, while the 700–1000 ms window was correlated with performance on a subsequent test. Similarly, Bai et al. 56 found that the late component (700–1000 ms) predicted future, but not current, test accuracy. Moreover, Bencze et al. 57 observed a subsequent memory effect in two ERP components during retrieval practice: one from 500 to 700 ms and another from 700 to 1000 ms. These findings were interpreted to suggest that the earlier component is associated with episodic recollection, and the later component relates to post-retrieval evaluative processes.

Besides support for the two-process component in the testing effect, neural evidence also supports the assumption that both retrieval attempt and post-retrieval re-encoding consume the same pool of WM resources, a concept rooted in the original SAC model40. Lee et al. 58 demonstrated that both episodic memory encoding and retrieval activate similar regions of the lateral prefrontal cortex, challenging the functional-asymmetry model that suggests these processes use distinct WM resource pools. Further supporting this notion, Hsieh and Ranganath59 found that frontal midline theta activity is involved in both WM and episodic memory encoding and retrieval. This finding underscores the overlapping nature of the cognitive processes underlying these processes. Additionally, Rugg et al. 60 showed that successful recollection necessitates the engagement of processes involved in both encoding and retrieval, implicating the same cortical regions. This overlap highlights the interconnectedness of memory processes. Melrose et al. 61 further emphasized this connection by demonstrating that prefrontal cortex activity during WM tasks supports long-term memory learning and recall. Collectively, these studies indicate a significant overlap between WM and long-term memory encoding and retrieval, reinforcing the idea that both retrieval and re-encoding in the testing effect draw from a common pool of WM resources.

While the aforementioned studies provide substantial neural evidence supporting the assumption that both retrieval and post-retrieval re-encoding processes draw from a common pool of WM resources, it is important to note that this evidence remains indirect. Direct empirical validation of this assumption is still lacking. Future research should focus on designing paradigms that directly test the competition between encoding and retrieval tasks for working memory resources.

Relationship with existing theories

It’s worth noting that although our model proposes a dual-process framework, it does not inherently conflict with existing theories of the testing effect that focus on one of the two processes. Mechanisms like semantic elaboration31, mediator effectiveness32, transfer-appropriate process30, and reconsolidation35,36 may still play a role in further explaining under which circumstances each process is beneficial.

Our model coincides with the Reconsolidation Account35,36, in which both models acknowledge the existence of two processes during the testing effect: the retrieval process per se and the post-retrieval process. However, our model diverges from the reconsolidation theory as described by Finn35 and Finn & Roediger36. The reconsolidation account focuses on the post-retrieval process, arguing that the retrieval practice marks memories as entering a “labile state”, making them susceptible to change. In other words, what actually strengthens memory is the post-retrieval process. However, our model states that both the retrieval attempt and post-retrieval re-encoding processes may strengthen memory. While the first process is guaranteed to strengthen memory, the second process’s strength depends on whether the first process consumes all the available working memory resources.

Moreover, our model aligns with the desirable difficulty framework33 in learning, which posits that effective learning necessitates a significant yet manageable level of effort. According to our model, when a task significantly challenges an individual’s WMC, the “difficulty” generated by the task becomes too high to yield benefits. Conversely, if the testing is too easy— for instance, when the information is already mastered—the benefits are limited. This is because the memory traces cannot be further strengthened through the dual processes of retrieval and re-encoding. Therefore, our model provides a mechanistic rationale for the desirable difficulty hypothesis, linking it to the demands placed on working memory during retrieval practice. The optimal level of difficulty, as suggested by our model, is reached when the task demands moderately engage the WMC, allowing for both retrieval success and additional processing.

In conclusion, the subject of how individual differences affect the testing effect has produced mixed and often hard-to-interpret results. However, these inconsistent findings offer valuable opportunities to understand the general mechanisms behind the testing effect. In this paper, we introduce a theoretical model1 that seeks to clarify these discrepancies by examining the interplay between WMC and WM demands. We substantiate our model with evidence from fMRI and EEG studies, showing its consistency with the empirical findings discussed in this review. This model has the potential to illuminate educational applications, providing a unique lens through which to view the testing effect as a trade-off in working memory resources. From an educational standpoint, achieving the right balance between an individual’s WMC and task difficulty—akin to the concept of “desirable difficulty” proposed by Bjork33 —may be crucial for unlocking the full potential of retrieval practice for diverse students. Future research could take advantage of big data methodologies to explore this potential trade-off in a more systematic and comprehensive manner.

Author contributions

X.L.L conceptualized the manuscript. Y.Z., A.S., and X.L.L. contributed to writing and revising the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Yicong Zheng, Aike Shi.
==== Refs
References

1. Zheng Y Sun P Liu XL Retrieval practice is costly and is beneficial only when working memory capacity is abundant Npj Sci. Learn. 2023 8 8 10.1038/s41539-023-00159-w 37002242
Zheng, Y., Sun, P. & Liu, X. L. Retrieval practice is costly and is beneficial only when working memory capacity is abundant. Npj Sci. Learn. 8, 8 (2023).37002242 10.1038/s41539-023-00159-w
2. Gates, A.I. Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Arch. Sci. Psychol 6, (1917).
3. Hogan RM Kintsch W Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1971 10 562 567 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80029-4
Hogan, R. M. & Kintsch, W. Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 10, 562–567 (1971).10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80029-4
4. Pyc MA Rawson KA Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? J. Mem. Lang. 2009 60 437 447 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
Pyc, M. A. & Rawson, K. A. Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? J. Mem. Lang. 60, 437–447 (2009).10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
5. Wheeler MA Roediger HL Disparate effects of repeated testing: reconciling Ballard’s (1913) and Bartlett’s (1932) Results Psychol. Sci. 1992 3 240 246 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00036.x
Wheeler, M. A. & Roediger, H. L. Disparate effects of repeated testing: reconciling Ballard’s (1913) and Bartlett’s (1932). Results Psychol. Sci. 3, 240–246 (1992).10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00036.x
6. McDaniel MA Roediger HL McDermott KB Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2007 14 200 206 10.3758/BF03194052 17694901
McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L. & McDermott, K. B. Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 200–206 (2007).17694901 10.3758/BF03194052
7. Pashler H Rohrer D Cepeda NJ Carpenter SK Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: choices and consequences Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2007 14 187 193 10.3758/BF03194050 17694899
Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N. J. & Carpenter, S. K. Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: choices and consequences. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 187–193 (2007).17694899 10.3758/BF03194050
8. Roediger HL Karpicke JD Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention Psychol. Sci. 2006 17 249 255 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x 16507066
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol. Sci. 17, 249–255 (2006).16507066 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
9. Goossens NAMC Camp G Verkoeijen PPJL Tabbers HK Zwaan RA The benefit of retrieval practice over elaborative restudy in primary school vocabulary learning J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2014 3 177 182 10.1037/h0101800
Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K. & Zwaan, R. A. The benefit of retrieval practice over elaborative restudy in primary school vocabulary learning. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3, 177–182 (2014).10.1037/h0101800
10. Goossens NAMC Distributed practice and retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning: a multi‐classroom study Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2016 30 700 712 10.1002/acp.3245
Goossens, N. A. M. C. et al. Distributed practice and retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning: a multi‐classroom study. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 30, 700–712 (2016).10.1002/acp.3245
11. Horn S Hernick M Improving student understanding of lipids concepts in a biochemistry course using test-enhanced learning Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015 16 918 928 10.1039/C5RP00133A
Horn, S. & Hernick, M. Improving student understanding of lipids concepts in a biochemistry course using test-enhanced learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16, 918–928 (2015).10.1039/C5RP00133A
12. Jaeger A Eisenkraemer RE Stein LM Test-enhanced learning in third-grade children Educ. Psychol. 2015 35 513 521 10.1080/01443410.2014.963030
Jaeger, A., Eisenkraemer, R. E. & Stein, L. M. Test-enhanced learning in third-grade children. Educ. Psychol. 35, 513–521 (2015).10.1080/01443410.2014.963030
13. Agarwal PK Karpicke JD Kang SHK Roediger HL McDermott KB Examining the testing effect with open‐ and closed‐book tests Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2008 22 861 876 10.1002/acp.1391
Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L. & McDermott, K. B. Examining the testing effect with open‐ and closed‐book tests. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 22, 861–876 (2008).10.1002/acp.1391
14. Karpicke JD Roediger HL Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2007 33 704 719 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704 17576148
Karpicke, J. D. & Roediger, H. L. Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33, 704–719 (2007).17576148 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704
15. Little JL Bjork EL Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning Mem. Cogn. 2015 43 14 26 10.3758/s13421-014-0452-8
Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning. Mem. Cogn. 43, 14–26 (2015).10.3758/s13421-014-0452-8
16. Mulligan NW Picklesimer M Attention and the testing effect J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2016 42 938 950 10.1037/xlm0000227 26618913
Mulligan, N. W. & Picklesimer, M. Attention and the testing effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 42, 938–950 (2016).26618913 10.1037/xlm0000227
17. Pastötter B Bäuml K-HT Reversing the testing effect by feedback: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2016 16 473 488 10.3758/s13415-016-0407-6 26857480
Pastötter, B. & Bäuml, K.-H. T. Reversing the testing effect by feedback: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 16, 473–488 (2016).26857480 10.3758/s13415-016-0407-6
18. Buchin, Z. L. & Mulligan, N. W. Retrieval-based learning and prior knowledge. J. Educ. Psychol. 10.1037/edu0000773 (2022).
19. Cogliano M Kardash CM Bernacki ML The effects of retrieval practice and prior topic knowledge on test performance and confidence judgments Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2019 56 117 129 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.12.001
Cogliano, M., Kardash, C. M. & Bernacki, M. L. The effects of retrieval practice and prior topic knowledge on test performance and confidence judgments. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 56, 117–129 (2019).10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.12.001
20. Glaser, J. & Richter, T. The testing effect in the lecture hall: does it transfer to content studied but not practiced? Teach. Psychol. 00986283231218943 10.1177/00986283231218943 (2023).
21. Bertilsson F Wiklund-Hörnqvist C Stenlund T Jonsson B The testing effect and its relation to working memory capacity and personality characteristics J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 2017 16 241 259 10.1891/1945-8959.16.3.241
Bertilsson, F., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C., Stenlund, T. & Jonsson, B. The testing effect and its relation to working memory capacity and personality characteristics. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 16, 241–259 (2017).10.1891/1945-8959.16.3.241
22. Minear M Coane JH Boland SC Cooney LH Albat M The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 2018 44 1474 1486 10.1037/xlm0000486 29648873
Minear, M., Coane, J. H., Boland, S. C., Cooney, L. H. & Albat, M. The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 44, 1474–1486 (2018).29648873 10.1037/xlm0000486
23. Wenzel K Reinhard M-A Relatively unintelligent individuals do not benefit from intentionally hindered learning: the role of desirable difficulties Intelligence 2019 77 101405 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101405
Wenzel, K. & Reinhard, M.-A. Relatively unintelligent individuals do not benefit from intentionally hindered learning: the role of desirable difficulties. Intelligence 77, 101405 (2019).10.1016/j.intell.2019.101405
24. Carpenter SK A classroom study on the relationship between student achievement and retrieval-enhanced learning Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2016 28 353 375 10.1007/s10648-015-9311-9
Carpenter, S. K. et al. A classroom study on the relationship between student achievement and retrieval-enhanced learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 353–375 (2016).10.1007/s10648-015-9311-9
25. Agarwal PK Finley JR Rose NS Roediger HL Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity Memory 2017 25 764 771 10.1080/09658211.2016.1220579 27531308
Agarwal, P. K., Finley, J. R., Rose, N. S. & Roediger, H. L. Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity. Memory 25, 764–771 (2017).27531308 10.1080/09658211.2016.1220579
26. Tse C-S Pu X The effectiveness of test-enhanced learning depends on trait test anxiety and working-memory capacity J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2012 18 253 264 10.1037/a0029190 22774786
Tse, C.-S. & Pu, X. The effectiveness of test-enhanced learning depends on trait test anxiety and working-memory capacity. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 18, 253–264 (2012).22774786 10.1037/a0029190
27. Bertilsson F Stenlund T Wiklund-Hörnqvist C Jonsson B Retrieval practice: beneficial for all students or moderated by individual differences? Psychol. Learn. Teach. 2021 20 21 39 10.1177/1475725720973494
Bertilsson, F., Stenlund, T., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C. & Jonsson, B. Retrieval practice: beneficial for all students or moderated by individual differences? Psychol. Learn. Teach. 20, 21–39 (2021).10.1177/1475725720973494
28. Brewer GA Unsworth N Individual differences in the effects of retrieval from long-term memory J. Mem. Lang. 2012 66 407 415 10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.009
Brewer, G. A. & Unsworth, N. Individual differences in the effects of retrieval from long-term memory. J. Mem. Lang. 66, 407–415 (2012).10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.009
29. Wiklund‐Hörnqvist C Jonsson B Nyberg L Strengthening concept learning by repeated testing Scand. J. Psychol. 2014 55 10 16 10.1111/sjop.12093 24313425
Wiklund‐Hörnqvist, C., Jonsson, B. & Nyberg, L. Strengthening concept learning by repeated testing. Scand. J. Psychol. 55, 10–16 (2014).24313425 10.1111/sjop.12093
30. Roediger HLR Gallo DA Geraci L Processing approaches to cognition: the impetus from the levels-of-processing framework Memory 2002 10 319 332 10.1080/09658210224000144 12396644
Roediger, H. L. R., Gallo, D. A. & Geraci, L. Processing approaches to cognition: the impetus from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory 10, 319–332 (2002).12396644 10.1080/09658210224000144
31. Carpenter SK Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 2009 35 1563 1569 10.1037/a0017021 19857026
Carpenter, S. K. Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 35, 1563–1569 (2009).19857026 10.1037/a0017021
32. Pyc MA Rawson KA Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis Science 2010 330 335 335 10.1126/science.1191465 20947756
Pyc, M. A. & Rawson, K. A. Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science 330, 335–335 (2010).20947756 10.1126/science.1191465
33. Bjork, R. A. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. in Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (The MIT Press, 1994).
34. Lehman M Smith MA Karpicke JD Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2014 40 1787 1794 10.1037/xlm0000012 24797442
Lehman, M., Smith, M. A. & Karpicke, J. D. Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 40, 1787–1794 (2014).24797442 10.1037/xlm0000012
35. Finn, B. A framework of episodic updating. in Psychology of Learning and Motivation 67 173–211 (Elsevier, 2017).
36. Finn B Roediger HL Enhancing retention through reconsolidation: negative emotional arousal following retrieval enhances later recall Psychol. Sci. 2011 22 781 786 10.1177/0956797611407932 21537055
Finn, B. & Roediger, H. L. Enhancing retention through reconsolidation: negative emotional arousal following retrieval enhances later recall. Psychol. Sci. 22, 781–786 (2011).21537055 10.1177/0956797611407932
37. Gerbier E Toppino TC The effect of distributed practice: neuroscience, cognition, and education Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2015 4 49 59 10.1016/j.tine.2015.01.001
Gerbier, E. & Toppino, T. C. The effect of distributed practice: neuroscience, cognition, and education. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 4, 49–59 (2015).10.1016/j.tine.2015.01.001
38. Forcato C Reconsolidation of declarative memory in humans Learn. Mem. 2007 14 295 303 10.1101/lm.486107 17522018
Forcato, C. et al. Reconsolidation of declarative memory in humans. Learn. Mem. 14, 295–303 (2007).17522018 10.1101/lm.486107
39. Phelps, E. A. & Schiller, D. Reconsolidation in humans. in Memory Reconsolidation 185–211. 10.1016/B978-0-12-386892-3.00009-3 (Elsevier, 2013).
40. Popov V Reder L Frequency effects on memory: a resource-limited theory Psychol. Rev. 2020 127 1 46 10.1037/rev0000161 31524424
Popov, V. & Reder, L. Frequency effects on memory: a resource-limited theory. Psychol. Rev. 127, 1–46 (2020).31524424 10.1037/rev0000161
41. Schunn C Reder LM Nhouyvanisvong A To calculate or not to calculate: a source activation confusion model of problem familiarity’s role in strategy selection J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 1997 23 3 29 10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.3
Schunn, C., Reder, L. M. & Nhouyvanisvong, A. To calculate or not to calculate: a source activation confusion model of problem familiarity’s role in strategy selection. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 23, 3–29 (1997).10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.3
42. Chan, J. C. K., Davis, S. D., Yurtsever, A. & Myers, S. J. The magnitude of the testing effect is independent of retrieval practice performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 10.1037/xge0001593 (2024).
43. Tse C-S Chan MH-M Tse W-S Wong SW-H Can the testing effect for general knowledge facts be influenced by distraction due to divided attention or experimentally induced anxious mood? Front. Psychol. 2019 10 969 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00969 31130894
Tse, C.-S., Chan, M. H.-M., Tse, W.-S. & Wong, S. W.-H. Can the testing effect for general knowledge facts be influenced by distraction due to divided attention or experimentally induced anxious mood? Front. Psychol. 10, 969 (2019).31130894 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00969
44. Tse C-S Balota DA Roediger HL The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face–name pairs in healthy older adults Psychol. Aging 2010 25 833 845 10.1037/a0019933 20718541
Tse, C.-S., Balota, D. A. & Roediger, H. L. The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face–name pairs in healthy older adults. Psychol. Aging 25, 833–845 (2010).20718541 10.1037/a0019933
45. Coane JH Retrieval practice and elaborative encoding benefit memory in younger and older adults J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cognit. 2013 2 95 100 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.04.001
Coane, J. H. Retrieval practice and elaborative encoding benefit memory in younger and older adults. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cognit. 2, 95–100 (2013).10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.04.001
46. Guran C-NA Herweg NA Bunzeck N Age-related decreases in the retrieval practice effect directly relate to changes in alpha-beta oscillations J. Neurosci. 2019 39 4344 4352 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2791-18.2019 30902871
Guran, C.-N. A., Herweg, N. A. & Bunzeck, N. Age-related decreases in the retrieval practice effect directly relate to changes in alpha-beta oscillations. J. Neurosci. 39, 4344–4352 (2019).30902871 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2791-18.2019
47. Guran C-NA Lehmann-Grube J Bunzeck N Retrieval practice improves recollection-based memory over a seven-day period in younger and older adults Front. Psychol. 2020 10 2997 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02997 32038382
Guran, C.-N. A., Lehmann-Grube, J. & Bunzeck, N. Retrieval practice improves recollection-based memory over a seven-day period in younger and older adults. Front. Psychol. 10, 2997 (2020).32038382 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02997
48. Shaffer RA McDermott KB The dual-process perspective and the benefits of retrieval practice in younger and older adults Memory 2022 30 554 572 10.1080/09658211.2022.2027986 35139761
Shaffer, R. A. & McDermott, K. B. The dual-process perspective and the benefits of retrieval practice in younger and older adults. Memory 30, 554–572 (2022).35139761 10.1080/09658211.2022.2027986
49. Jaroslawska AJ Rhodes S Adult age differences in the effects of processing on storage in working memory: a meta-analysis Psychol. Aging 2019 34 512 530 10.1037/pag0000358 31045391
Jaroslawska, A. J. & Rhodes, S. Adult age differences in the effects of processing on storage in working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Aging 34, 512–530 (2019).31045391 10.1037/pag0000358
50. Sander MC Lindenberger U Werkle-Bergner M Lifespan age differences in working memory: a two-component framework Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012 36 2007 2033 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.06.004 22771333
Sander, M. C., Lindenberger, U. & Werkle-Bergner, M. Lifespan age differences in working memory: a two-component framework. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 2007–2033 (2012).22771333 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.06.004
51. Liu XL Liang P Li K Reder LM Uncovering the neural mechanisms underlying learning from tests PLoS ONE 2014 9 e92025 10.1371/journal.pone.0092025 24647122
Liu, X. L., Liang, P., Li, K. & Reder, L. M. Uncovering the neural mechanisms underlying learning from tests. PLoS ONE 9, e92025 (2014).24647122 10.1371/journal.pone.0092025
52. Liu XL Reder LM fMRI exploration of pedagogical benefits of repeated testing: when more is not always better Brain Behav. 2016 6 e00476 10.1002/brb3.476 27458542
Liu, X. L. & Reder, L. M. fMRI exploration of pedagogical benefits of repeated testing: when more is not always better. Brain Behav. 6, e00476 (2016).27458542 10.1002/brb3.476
53. Wang L Yang J Learning from errors: distinct neural networks for monitoring errors and maintaining corrects through repeated practice and feedback NeuroImage 2023 271 120001 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120001 36878457
Wang, L. & Yang, J. Learning from errors: distinct neural networks for monitoring errors and maintaining corrects through repeated practice and feedback. NeuroImage 271, 120001 (2023).36878457 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120001
54. Liu XL Tan DH Reder LM The two processes underlying the testing effect– Evidence from Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) Neuropsychologia 2018 112 77 85 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.022 29474894
Liu, X. L., Tan, D. H. & Reder, L. M. The two processes underlying the testing effect– Evidence from Event-Related Potentials (ERPs). Neuropsychologia 112, 77–85 (2018).29474894 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.022
55. Bridge DJ Paller KA Neural correlates of reactivation and retrieval-induced distortion J. Neurosci. 2012 32 12144 12151 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1378-12.2012 22933797
Bridge, D. J. & Paller, K. A. Neural correlates of reactivation and retrieval-induced distortion. J. Neurosci. 32, 12144–12151 (2012).22933797 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1378-12.2012
56. Bai C-H Bridger EK Zimmer HD Mecklinger A The beneficial effect of testing: an event-related potential study Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2015 9 248 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00248 26441577
Bai, C.-H., Bridger, E. K., Zimmer, H. D. & Mecklinger, A. The beneficial effect of testing: an event-related potential study. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9, 248 (2015).26441577 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00248
57. Bencze D Szőllősi Á Németh K Racsmány M An event-related potential study of the testing effect: electrophysiological evidence for context-dependent processes changing throughout repeated practice Biol. Psychol. 2022 171 108341 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108341 35460819
Bencze, D., Szőllősi, Á., Németh, K. & Racsmány, M. An event-related potential study of the testing effect: electrophysiological evidence for context-dependent processes changing throughout repeated practice. Biol. Psychol. 171, 108341 (2022).35460819 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108341
58. Lee ACH Robbins TW Pickard JD Owen AM Asymmetric frontal activation during episodic memory: the effects of stimulus type on encoding and retrieval Neuropsychologia 2000 38 677 692 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00094-9 10689044
Lee, A. C. H., Robbins, T. W., Pickard, J. D. & Owen, A. M. Asymmetric frontal activation during episodic memory: the effects of stimulus type on encoding and retrieval. Neuropsychologia 38, 677–692 (2000).10689044 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00094-9
59. Hsieh L-T Ranganath C Frontal midline theta oscillations during working memory maintenance and episodic encoding and retrieval NeuroImage 2014 85 721 729 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.003 23933041
Hsieh, L.-T. & Ranganath, C. Frontal midline theta oscillations during working memory maintenance and episodic encoding and retrieval. NeuroImage 85, 721–729 (2014).23933041 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.003
60. Rugg, M. D., Johnson, J. D. & Uncapher, M. R. Encoding and retrieval in episodic memory: insights from fMRI. in The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory (eds. Addis, D. R., Barense, M. & Duarte, A.) 84–107. 10.1002/9781118332634.ch5 (Wiley, 2015).
61. Melrose RJ Prefrontal working memory activity predicts episodic memory performance: a neuroimaging study Behav. Brain Res. 2020 379 112307 10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112307 31678217
Melrose, R. J. et al. Prefrontal working memory activity predicts episodic memory performance: a neuroimaging study. Behav. Brain Res. 379, 112307 (2020).31678217 10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112307
