↓ Skip to main content

Desirable Difficulties in Spatial Learning: Testing Enhances Subsequent Learning of Spatial Information

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Desirable Difficulties in Spatial Learning: Testing Enhances Subsequent Learning of Spatial Information
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01701
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Bufe, Alp Aslan

Abstract

Previous work has shown that testing can enhance learning and retention of subsequently studied new information. The present study investigated this forward testing effect in spatial memory. In two experiments, participants studied four successively presented 3 × 3 arrays, each composed of the same nine objects. They were asked to memorize the locations of the objects which differed across the four arrays. Following presentation of Arrays 1-3, memory for the object locations of the respective array was tested (testing condition), or the array was re-presented for additional study (restudy condition). Thereafter, Array 4 was presented and tested in both the testing and the restudy condition. In Experiment 1, testing was self-paced, whereas in Experiment 2, testing time was controlled by the experimenter. Consistent across the two experiments, testing was found to enhance location memory for Array 4, relative to restudying. Furthermore, testing also reduced the number of confusion errors (i.e., the tendency to misplace objects to locations on which they had appeared previously) made during recall of Array 4, suggesting that testing reduced the interference potential of prior information. The results indicate that testing can enhance subsequent learning of spatial information by reducing the build-up of proactive interference from previously studied information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Lecturer 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,545,423
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,084
of 30,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,372
of 337,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#531
of 753 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 753 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.