↓ Skip to main content

Spacing Repetitions Over Long Timescales: A Review and a Reconsolidation Explanation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Spacing Repetitions Over Long Timescales: A Review and a Reconsolidation Explanation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00962
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher D. Smith, Damian Scarf

Abstract

Recent accounts of the spacing effect have proposed molecular explanations that explain spacing over short, but not long timescales. In the first half of this paper, we review research on the spacing effect that has employed spaces of 24 h or more across skill-related tasks, language-related tasks and generalization for adults and children. Throughout this review, we distinguish between learning and retention by defining learning (or acquisition) as performance at the end of training and retention as performance after a delay period. Using this distinction, we find age- and task-related differences in the manifestation of the spacing effect over long timescales. In the second half of this paper, we discuss a reconsolidation account of the spacing effect. In particular, we review the evidence that suggests the spacing of repetitions influences the subsequent consolidation and reconsolidation processes; we explain how a reconsolidation account may explain the findings for learning; the inverted-U curve for retention; and compare the reconsolidation account with previous consolidation accounts of the spacing effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 47 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 17%
Neuroscience 14 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 8%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 53 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 28 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,977,748
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,034
of 34,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,204
of 331,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#108
of 632 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 331,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 632 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.