Working memory capacity and the spacing effect in cued recall.

Spacing repetitions typically improves memory (the spacing effect). In three cued recall experiments, we explored the relationship between working memory capacity and the spacing effect. People with higher working memory capacity are more accurate on memory tasks that require retrieval relative to people with lower working memory capacity. The experiments used different retention intervals and lags between repetitions, but were otherwise similar. Working memory capacity and spacing of repetitions both improved memory in most of conditions, but they did not interact, suggesting additive effects. The results are consistent with the ACT-R model's predictions, and with a study-phase recognition process underpinning the spacing effect in cued recall.

The spacing effect in immediate and delayed free recall.

Spacing repetitions improves learning relative to massing repetitions (the spacing effect). While most studies have examined the spacing effect at short retention intervals, there are contradictory claims about its fate at a delay. Certain empirical findings suggest that the spacing effect persists at a delay. However, a recent theoretical account proposes that in free recall the spacing effect should disappear at a delay. The few studies that have examined the spacing effect at a delay are sub-optimally designed, preventing an unbiased conclusion. The current study used incidental learning and controlled recency and encoding strategy in order to examine the effect of delay on the recall of spaced items within a free recall paradigm. The results demonstrated that the spacing effect persists after a delay. The results point to an important dissociation between intentional forgetting and context-change designs (which produce more forgetting of spaced than massed items) and the passage of time (which produces similar forgetting of spaced and massed items).