Memory & Cognition (2019) 47:816–841 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00903-x Testing the primary and convergent retrieval model of recall: Recall practice produces faster recall success but also faster recall failure William J. Hopper1 & David E. Huber1 Published online: 8 February 2019 # The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019 Abstract The primary and convergent retrieval (PCR) model assumes that the act of successful recall not only boosts associations between the item and retrieval cues but additionally strengthens associations within the item (i.e., between the features of an item), speeding the rate of information retrieval from memory. The latter effect is termed intra-item learning and is a unique benefit of recall practice (i.e., the Btesting effect^). Prior work confirmed the prediction that recall practice produces faster subsequent recall than restudy practice even if accuracy is higher following restudy. The current study replicated this result, but also examined the downside of recall practice: that after a failure to recall during practice, participants will be faster in their failure to recall on a subsequent recall test. This prediction was confirmed in a multisession cued recall experiment that collected accuracy and recall latency measurements for no practice, recall practice, or restudy, with an immediate or delayed final test. The linear ballistic accumulator model was fit to latency distributions, and model comparison determined that these effects reflect differences in drift rates, as predicted by the PCR model. Keywords Episodic memory . Cued recall . Retrieval practice . Cognitive modeling Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed the modal model of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon are the multiple-copy models memory, with separate storage Bmodes^ differing in terms of suggested by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1965).^ (p. 105). information content, capacity, and retention duration. In addi- Atkinson and Shiffrin (1965) is a lesser known technical tion, Atkinson and Shiffrin outlined the manner in which mem- report, outlining much of what would appear in the subsequent ories move through these modes, entering long-term storage in 1968 paper, but this technical report went into greater detail the form of separate memory traces for each episode, and sub- regarding the mathematics of the proposed memory models. sequently, the manner in which information is retrieved from The single copy models that served as the basis for the 1968 long-term storage. The current study concerns a specific aspect paper are presented, but in addition, this technical report con- of this retrieval process—the manner in which an initial partial sidered multiple-copy models in which different study episodes retrieval of a memory might or might not lead to full retrieval. A of the same item are stored in separate memory traces. First, it classic example of this is the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon was demonstrated that the multiple trace model produces sim- (Brown & McNeill, 1966), in which an individual might fail ilar learning effects as compared with the strength-based single to recall something, but know that they know the desired copy model. Second, a specific Binformation model^ imple- information—for instance, as realized by their ability to recog- mentation of the multiple trace assumption was considered in nize the answer. Of this phenomenon, Atkinson and Shiffrin which the copies are bits of information concerning an item. wrote that Ba simple trace model can probably not handle these Thus, the longer that an item is studied (or the more times that it results. A class of models for the trace which can explain the is encountered), the higher the proportion of stored features for that item. Of this information model, Atkinson and Shiffrin wrote, BOn any one search this information may be insufficient * William J. Hopper to actually report the correct answer with assurance. On the [email protected] other hand the idea of a small portion of information being available gives a natural explanation for the difference between 1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of recall and recognition measures of retention^ (p.80).Thisin- Massachusetts, 441 Tobin Hall, 135 Hicks Way, formation model was not further developed, and the subsequent Amherst, MA 01003, USA Mem Cogn (2019) 47:816–841 817 SAM (Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981) word pairs, or text passages). In the practice phase, items from and REM models (Malmberg & Shiffrin, 2005; Shiffrin & the acquisition phase are reviewed in different ways; typically, Steyvers, 1997), as applied to recall data, assume that the some items are restudied while a practice test is given for other Brecovery process^ isbasedonthesingle-copymemory items (e.g., recalling the missing word from a pair). Lastly, a strength that also underlies recognition. In other words, the memory test is administered for all items in the final test phase subsequent models assume that the main qualitative difference and the key comparisons concern final test accuracy following between recognition and recall arises from the sampling of different kinds of practice. The benefits of test practice be- traces in the memory search process. come apparent when there is a substantial retention interval The primary and convergent retrieval (PCR) model pro- (e.g., at least 24 hours) between the practice and final test; posed by Hopper and Huber (2018) assumes a qualitatively after a delay, memory retrieval is more accurate for items that different kind of associative information that is unique to re- received a practice test, as compared with restudied items, and call, predicting differences between recall and recognition this is true even in the absence of any feedback during the above and beyond the sampling process that only applies to practice test (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Carpenter, Pashler, recall. In other words, not only are recognition and recall Wixted, & Vul, 2008; Kuo & Hirshman, 1996; Roediger & different processes, as is assumed by all memory models, Karpicke, 2006b; Toppino & Cohen, 2009;Wheeler,Ewers, but the PCR model assumes they operate on different kinds & Buonanno, 2003). of memory storage and are supported by different learning The finding that recall practice is better than restudy after a processes. The representation assumed in the PCR model is delay might simply indicate that recall practice produces similar to Atkinson and Shiffrin’s(1965) Binformation stronger memories. However, the effect of recall practice ap- model,^ where memory traces are a pattern of features within pears to be more complicated than a simple strengthening of a larger interconnected network. In the PCR model, the recov- all practiced items. For instance, if the final test occurs imme- ery process (i.e., convergent retrieval) that occurs during recall diately after a practice phase that does not include feedback, unfolds dynamically, with already retrieved item features serv- the opposite pattern is often observed, with higher accuracy ing as the cues for the retrieval of additional item features. following restudy as compared with following test practice. Successful convergent retrieval not only enables recall of the Thus, there is a crossover interaction with delay, suggesting item but additionally supports new learning for the associa- different forgetting rates following recall practice as compared tions between the features of an item. Thus, the PCR model with restudy. However, there is not much opportunity to learn proposes that the act of recalling something induces a kind of from the failure to recall an item in the absence of feedback learning different from the learning that might occur when (although the current experiment demonstrates that something studying an item in a passive fashion. Furthermore, this con- is indeed learned from recall failure—more specifically, this vergent retrieval learning is predicted to affect the speed with produces more rapid failure on the final test). Because not all which items are recalled from memory. In light of this propos- items are recalled on a practice test, and no feedback is pro- al, the PCR model is well positioned to explain the benefits of vided on the practice test, the distribution of memory strengths retrieval practice, as briefly reviewed next. is Bbifurcated,^ with the successfully recalled items receiving a large boost, whereas the nonrecalled items are unchanged (Kornell, Bjork, & Garcia, 2011). Thus, an immediate final Retrieval practice test reveals essentially the same accuracy level as occurred on the practice test, whereas with restudy, there is an opportunity In preparation for an upcoming exam, which form of practice to learn items that were not initially acquired, resulting in is most effective? Beyond rote rehearsal, a wide variety of higher accuracy. Furthermore, if restudy produces weaker techniques can be employed, including spaced learning, im- learning, albeit learning that is applied to all items (i.e., a agery, and Bsurvival processing^ (e.g., Nairne, Pandeirada, & nonbifurcated distribution), and if memory strengths decrease Thompson, 2008). However, for long-term retention (e.g., at the same rate for all items with delay, then more memories preparing for an exam a week in advance, rather than 1 hour of restudied items will fall below the retrieval threshold after a in advance), there is considerable evidence that the act of sufficient delay than will recalled items, reversing the pattern taking a practice test is