Long-term spacing effect benefits in developmental amnesia: Case experiments in rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The spacing effect describes the typical finding that repeated items are remembered best when additional items are introduced between each repetition than when the repetitions occur in immediate succession. In this study, we investigated the nature and limits of the spacing effect in the developmental amnesic case H.C. METHOD: In Experiment 1, we compared the performance of H.C. to that of controls on a short-term, free recall, verbal learning spacing paradigm while controlling for retention interval (timing of item review and recall). In Experiment 2, we compared the performance of H.C. to that of controls on a multiday, cued recall, verbal learning spacing paradigm, in which memory was assessed after 1 week. RESULTS: In both experiments, H.C. demonstrated a spacing effect comparable to the effect exhibited by controls. In Experiment 1, her final recall memory for long-lag (spaced) items was better than recall for no-lag (massed) items t(23) = 10.99, p < .001, d = 2.5. In Experiment 2, her final cued recall memory for next-day-reviewed (spaced) items was better than cued recall for same-day-reviewed (massed) items, t(20) = 17.6, p < .001, d = 4.1. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the spacing effect in a person with impaired episodic memory development and is the first to show long-term benefits of spacing in amnesia. Substantially slower learning-to-criterion suggests an alternate mechanism supporting the spacing effect, perhaps independent of the hippocampus. Spacing should be considered as a candidate memory intervention technique given its effectiveness in both short- and long-term learning settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".