Whether Learning Trials Moderate the Retrieval Practice Effect over a Long Retention Interval: Evidence from Old/New Recognition

Abstract This study addresses a key gap in retrieval practice research by testing whether a modest increase in learning repetitions moderates the long-term advantage of retrieval practice under recognition-based testing. Prior research suggests that additional learning trials can amplify retrieval practice effects, particularly at shorter retention intervals and in recall-based assessments; however, it remains unclear whether such modulation persists after extended delays when memory is assessed via recognition. We employed a 2 (learning method: restudy vs. retrieval practice) × 2 (learning trials: 3 vs. 4) mixed factorial design. Eighty-six participants learned Swahili-Chinese translation pairs, with half completing three trials and the other half four trials; all participants experienced both learning methods. After a one-week delay, participants completed an old/new recognition test. Results showed a significant main effect of learning method: retrieval practice yielded higher recognition accuracy than restudying across trial conditions. In contrast, neither the main effect of learning trials nor its interaction with learning method was significant, indicating that increasing repetitions from three to four did not further benefit delayed recognition performance. This pattern differs from findings reported at shorter retention intervals and recall-based assessments, raising the possibility that learning-trial modulation depends on retention interval and test format. Overall, these findings suggest that the retrieval practice advantage is robust after an extended retention interval, but that learning-trial modulation may be attenuated when retention is assessed with a recognition test, thereby refining current accounts of how repetitions shape retrieval-based learning.