Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347

DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0352-5

BRIEF REPORT

The roles of working memory and intervening task difficulty

in determining the benefits of repetition
Dung C. Bui & Geoffrey B. Maddox & David A. Balota

Published online: 6 December 2012

# Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2012

Abstract Memory is better when learning events are The spacing effect refers to the finding that spaced repeti-
spaced, as compared with massed (i.e., the spacing effect). tions produce better memory performance than massed rep-
Recent theories posit that retrieval of an item’s earlier pre- etitions. Several accounts of the spacing effect posit that an
sentation contributes to the spacing effect, which suggests item’s second presentation cues retrieval of the item’s first
that individual differences in the ability to retrieve an earlier presentation (e.g., Appleton-Knapp, Bjork, & Wickens,
event may influence the benefit of spaced repetition. The 2005; Benjamin & Tullis, 2010; Thios & D’Agostino,
present study examined (1) the difficulty of task demands 1976). Moreover, when retrieval is successful, it is predicted
between repetitions, which should modulate the ability to that the benefit to later memory is positively related to the
retrieve the earlier information, and (2) individual differ- effort required to successfully retrieve the earlier presenta-
ences in working memory in a spaced repetition paradigm. tion (e.g., desirable difficulties; Bjork, 1994).
Across two experiments, participants studied a word set The typical way of examining potential mechanisms un-
twice, each separated by an interval where duration was derlying the spacing effect is to manipulate the number of
held constant, and the difficulty of the intervening task items between two study events. Alternatively, one can hold
was manipulated. After a short retention interval following the number of intervening items constant while manipulat-
the second presentation, participants recalled the word set. ing the intervening task difficulty (ITD). Using the latter
Those who scored high on working memory measures approach, Bjork and Allen (1970) and Roediger and
benefited more from repeated study than did those who Crowder (1975) presented participants with a set of words
scored lower on working memory measures, regardless of two times. Each presentation was separated by an easy or a
task difficulty. Critically, a crossover interaction was ob- difficult intervening task. Additionally, each study included
served between working memory and intervening task dif- control trials that assessed memory immediately following
ficulty: Individuals with low working memory scores the intervening task (i.e., without a repeated presentation).
benefited more when task difficulty was easy than when it In both studies, control trial performance was lower follow-
was difficult, but individuals with high working memory ing the difficult intervening task than following the easy
scores produced the opposite effect. These results suggest intervening task, indicating that increasing task difficulty
that individual differences in working memory should be also increased forgetting of the previously presented word
considered in optimizing the benefits of repetition learning. set. More important, patterns of recall on the repetition trials
differed between the two studies. Bjork and Allen found that
Keywords Working memory . Individual differences in memory was better for three-item word sets repeated fol-
memory capacity . Repetition effects . Attention and memory lowing the difficult intervening task than following the easy
intervening task. In contrast, Roediger and Crowder found
that memory was better for 12-item word sets repeated
following the easy intervening task than following the dif-
ficult intervening task.
D. C. Bui (*) : G. B. Maddox : D. A. Balota
Roediger and Crowder (1975) suggested that the differ-
Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis,
St. Louis, MO 63130, USA ences in materials used across the two studies may have
e-mail: dcbui@wustl.edu produced the different patterns of results. An additional
342 Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347

possibility is that there is a trade-off between the difficulty working memory individuals (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2000).
of the intervening task and individual differences. Specifi- Thus, they should be better at retrieving the first presenta-
cally, if the benefit of repetition relies on the extent to which tion of an item and, hence, show a larger benefit of spacing.
forgetting occurs during the intervening task, individual Furthermore, individuals with high working memory ability
differences in episodic memory ability may be important. may be more efficient than low-ability individuals at using
Indeed, Verkoeijen and Bouwmeester (2008) reported a attentional control to resist interference (Kane & Engle,
study in which participants were presented with a list of 2000), which plays a considerable role in forgetting (e.g.,
words, some of which were repeated immediately (a massed Underwood, 1957). Hence, in the present study, higher
condition similar to an easy intervening task, in which working memory ability individuals should be better able
minimal forgetting should occur) or after some delay (a to resist interference caused by the intervening task than low
spacing condition similar to a difficult intervening task, in working memory ability individuals, which should contrib-
which more forgetting should occur). Presentation rate was ute to a higher likelihood of successful retrieval of the first
one word per second (fast rate) or one word per 4 s (slow presentation of the word set.
rate). Latent class regression analysis on final recall perfor- Importantly, individual differences in working memory
mance revealed two classes: high and low performers. Crit- may modulate the effect of the difficulty of the intervening
ically, high performers benefited from spaced repetition over task between the repetitions. Specifically, for individuals
massed repetition regardless of presentation rate, but low with low working memory ability, retrieval of the first
performers benefited from spaced repetition only when presentation may be more successful during trials with an
words were presented at a slow rate. The important point easy intervening task, as compared with a more difficult
for the present study is that individual differences in overall intervening task. In contrast, high working memory ability
recall ability appear to modulate the spacing effect, consis- individuals may possess enough attentional control to resist
tent with the argument that retrieval of the earlier event is a interference in the difficult intervening condition and, be-
contributing mechanism to the spacing effect. cause of the increased desirable difficulties, benefit more
In addition to the role of individual differences in epi- from spacing in the difficult intervening condition, as com-
sodic memory, differences in working memory ability may pared with the easy intervening condition.
also influence the benefits of repetition. Recently, accumu-
lating evidence has supported a positive correlation between
individual differences in working memory and episodic Experiment 1
memory (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2000; McCabe, Roediger,
McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010). As McCabe et al. The goal of Experiment 1 was to explore the relationship
noted, there is considerable evidence that working memory between working memory and repetition learning in a par-
is positively related to attentional processing (e.g., Engle & adigm that manipulates the difficulty of the intervening
Kane, 2004), which in turn plays a role in the recollective material, as in Bjork and Allen (1970) and Roediger and
processes often required in episodic memory. Consistent Crowder (1975).
with this viewpoint, Oberauer (2005) found a significant
correlation between working memory and recollection, but Method
not between working memory and familiarity, suggesting
that working and episodic memory may be related because Participants and design
of the attentional control demands placed on each construct.
Thirty-nine Washington University undergraduate students
(17 females; M age 0 19.5 years, SD 0 1.5) participated for
Present study course credit. Both variables (ITD: easy, difficult; trial type:
single, repetition) were manipulated within subjects.
No studies, to our knowledge, have examined whether
working memory modulates the benefits of spaced repeti- Materials
tion. Given recent theoretical accounts of the spacing effect
that suggest that successful retrieval of an item’s first pre- Word sets Although Bjork and Allen (1970) used sets of
sentation on its second presentation is critical to obtaining three words, pilot data suggested that sets of six items were
the benefits of repeated study, it is important to assess the necessary to avoid ceiling effects. Thus, sets of six words
factors that may influence the relative difficulty of such were selected from the English Lexicon Project (Balota et
retrieval. Of interest in the present study is evidence sug- al., 2007) and were controlled for frequency and length.
gesting that individuals with higher working memory ability Additionally, words within each set were minimally related,
typically show a reduced forgetting rate, relative to low and mean association value for items within a set was
Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347 343

equated across all stimulus sets (Nelson, McEvoy, & studied a word set for 3 s, which was followed by a 30 s
Schreiber, 1998). intervening task. During the intervening task, participants
completed an easy or a difficult N-back task. Following the
Difficulty manipulation Experiment 1 used the N-back task intervening task on single-presentation trials, participants
to manipulate the difficulty of the task between repetitions were given 20 s to recall as many words as they could
(Kirchner, 1958). In this task, participants are presented remember from the studied set. Following the intervening
single-digit numbers separated by brief visual masks on a task on repetition trials, the same word set from the begin-
computer screen (one per second), and they are told to ning of the trial was re-presented for 3 s, which was then
indicate whether the current number on the screen is the followed by a 30 s retention interval (RI) filled with math
same as or different from the number seen N positions back, problems for completion. Following this RI, participants
using a keypress, with the value of N given at the start of recalled the studied word set.
each trial. The purpose of the task is to force participants to ITD was blocked, such that participants completed 10
maintain and update memory for that N number of items. repetition trials and 5 single presentation trials for each level
Difficulty is manipulated by increasing N (the number of of difficulty, yielding a total of 30 trials. The trials were
items to be held in memory). Pilot data indicated that single grouped into cycles that consisted of a repetition trial of each
trial recall in the one-back (M 0 .65, SD 0 .17) and five-back difficulty level and either a difficult or an easy single-
(M 0 .57, SD 0 .20) conditions were appropriate manipu- presentation trial. Thus, there were 3 trials per cycle, and ten
lations for easy and difficult intervening tasks, respectively. cycles for the entire word learning task. Within each cycle, the
order of the 3 trials was randomized, and the first cycle was
Working memory measures The letter–number sequencing administered as a practice cycle.
task and a reading span task were both used to assess working
memory. The letter–number sequencing task (adapted from Results
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, WAIS–IV; Wechsler,
2008) involves participants being shown a series of alternating Accurate estimates of how task difficulty affects recall required
numbers and letters one at a time at the rate of 1 item per that participants engage in the intervening task. Hence, trials
second. Participants are instructed to read each stimulus aloud where participants did not respond to at least 80 % of the N-
and to remember them for a subsequent test. At the end of back trials during an intervening task were excluded from
each trial, participants are asked to recall the numbers in analyses, which excluded 3.7 % of the trials. Because perfor-
numerical order, followed by the letters in alphabetical order. mance on the two working memory measures was significantly
Series length varied between 3 and 12 items, and the entire test correlated (r 0 .59), we created an aggregate working memory
consisted of 2 trials of each series length (24 total trials). A score by summing the proportion correct across tasks.
trial was considered correct if all stimuli were recalled in the The first question addressed in the present study was
correct order. Total score was calculated by summing the whether working memory performance predicted the bene-
series length of the correct trials. Hence, correct recall of larger fits of repetition learning. We conducted separate hierarchi-
series led to a higher score than did smaller series. cal regressions for the easy and difficult intervening task
The reading span task was adapted from Daneman and conditions, with performance on repetition trials as the
Carpenter (1980), with participants being shown a series of dependent measure. We first entered performance on the
alternating sentences and digits. After reading each sentence single-presentation trials in the regression model to ensure
aloud, participants used a keypress to report whether or not that any relationship observed between working memory
the sentence was sensible, at which time the sentence dis- and performance on repetition trials was not simply due to
appeared and a digit appeared on the screen to be read aloud overall differences in episodic memory. Working memory
by the participant. At the end of each series, participants performance was entered in the second step to determine
recalled the digits aloud in the order of presentation. Series whether it explained any unique variance in repetition recall
length varied between two and seven items, and participants performance. Table 1 displays the regression coefficients for
completed two trials of each series length. Total score was the easy and difficult intervening task conditions. In both
calculated by summing the series length of the correct trials. cases, adding working memory to the regression model
produced a significant change in R2, ps < .05. The regres-
sion coefficient for working memory in the final model was
Procedure also significant for both levels of difficulty, ps < .05.
Next, we examined whether working memory was a
Participants were first administered the letter–number se- stronger predictor of repetition benefits in the difficult inter-
quencing task and reading span task. Participants then com- vening task condition than in the easy intervening task condi-
pleted the word learning task. On each trial, participants tion. If effortful retrieval influences the benefits of spaced
344 Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347

Table 1 Experiment 1: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting repetition benefits

Easy intervening task Difficult intervening task

Variable B SE B β Δ R2 B SE B β Δ R2

Step 1
Single-trial recall .31 .10 .44* .20** .29 .14 .32* .11*
Step 2
Single-trial recall .18 .12 .25 .11 .13 .12
Working memory .19 .09 .35* .08* .39 .10 .57** .28**

*p < .05
**p < .01

repetition, and if there are working memory differences in working memory was significant, r(37) 0 .43, p 0 .007,
episodic memory and attentional control, then participants indicating that the benefit of separating repetitions by a diffi-
with lower working memory ability should benefit more from cult task, relative to an easy task, generally increases with
repetition trials that follow easy trials, as compared with increased working memory capacity. Thus, although working
difficult trials. In contrast, participants with higher working memory is a predictor of the benefits of repetition in both
memory should benefit more from spaced repetition learning conditions of ITD, it is a significantly stronger predictor in the
after a difficult intervening task than after an easy intervening difficult intervening task condition.
task. In order to address this question, gain scores (i.e., the
benefit from repetition learning over single-trial learning) for Discussion
each ITD condition were computed by the residuals from
separate regression analyses that partialed out performance Experiment 1 yielded two critical findings. First, regression
on single-presentation trials from repetition trial performance. analyses indicated that working memory ability explained
Figure 1 displays the regression lines comparing the role of unique variance for both levels of ITD even after controlling
working memory in repetition benefits as a function of ITD. for single-presentation trial performance (i.e., working
For each participant, we computed the difference between the memory and the benefits from repetition learning were
difficult ITD residual score and easy ITD residual score, positively correlated). Second, there was a crossover inter-
which reflected the additional benefit of repetition learning action between working memory ability and ITD such that
when repetitions were separated by a difficult rather than an for low working memory individuals, repetition benefits
easy task. The correlation between these difference scores and were greater following an easy intervening task than follow-
ing a difficult intervening task, whereas the opposite was
true for those with high working memory ability.

Experiment 2

The goal of the second experiment was to replicate the

findings from Experiment 1 and extend them to a more
diverse sample size, as well as to a different intervening
task (consonant–vowel/odd–even switching task; CVOE).

Method

Participants and design

One hundred twelve participants (87 females; M age 0

31.5 years, SD 0 11.0) were recruited from Amazon’s Me-
Fig. 1 Predicted standardized repetition performance as a function of
chanical Turk Web site to take part in this study for mone-
intervening task difficulty (ITD) for mean working memory ability and tary compensation. Both variables (ITD: easy, difficult; trial
±2 SD in Experiment 1 type: single, repetition) were manipulated within subjects.
Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347 345

Materials Results

Working ability was measured using the same tasks as those Similar to Experiment 1, trials on which participants did not
from the previous experiment (letter–number sequencing and respond to at least 80 % of the CVOE screens were excluded.
reading span tasks). Stimuli for the word sets were also selected In total, 2.4 % of the trials were excluded. Again, the two
in the same manner as in Experiment 1. Instead of manipulating working memory measures were significantly correlated (r 0
ITD using an N-back task, we used a CVOE switching task. .37), so we created an aggregate working memory score.
Separate hierarchical regressions were conducted for the
CVOE task In the CVOE switching task (e.g., Duchek et al., easy and difficult intervening task conditions, with perfor-
2009), participants are presented with a letter and a number mance on repetition trials as the dependent measure. Perfor-
on each screen and decide whether the letter is a consonant mance on single-presentation trials was entered in the first step
or a vowel or whether the number is odd or even. The type of the regression, followed by working memory performance
of decision to be made was indicated by an experimenter- in the second step. Table 2 displays the regression coefficients
provided cue on the screen. On pure block trials, partici- for the easy and difficult intervening task conditions. For both
pants made one type of decision (consonant/vowel or odd/ difficulty levels, adding working memory to the regression
even) throughout the trials. On mixed block trials, the deci- model led to a significant change in R2, ps < .05. The regres-
sion to be made switched every 2 number/letter screens. sion coefficient for working memory in the final model was
Each trial consisted of 12 number/letter screens, each pre- also significant for both levels of difficulty, ps < .05.
sented for 2 s. Pilot data confirmed that pure versus mixed Our method of examining whether working memory was a
trials was a strong manipulation of ITD, with single-trial stronger predictor of the benefits of repetition as a function of
recall being lower following mixed trials (M 0 .55, SD 0 ITD followed the same procedures as those used in Experiment
.17) than following the pure trials (M 0 .66, SD 0 .20). 1. Figure 2 displays the regression lines comparing the role of
working memory in repetition benefits as a function of ITD.
Procedure The correlation between difference scores of the two residuals
and working memory was significant, r(110) 0 .20, p 0 .036.
The experiment was divided into two sessions. The first session This result replicates the correlation obtained in Experiment 1,
consisted of the two working memory tasks. Following the first which indicated that the benefit of separating repetitions with a
session, participants were e-mailed with a link to complete the difficult task, relative to an easy task, generally increased with
word learning task. The word learning task was identical to that increases in working memory capacity. More specifically,
in Experiment 1, except that during the intervening task, partic- working memory was a better predictor of repetition perfor-
ipants completed easy or difficult blocks of the CVOE task (pure mance (when controlling for single-trial performance) when
or mixed, respectively). For each ITD, participants completed repetitions were separated by a difficult versus easy task.
8 repetition trials and 8 single-presentation trials for each level of
difficulty, yielding a total of 32 trials. The trials were grouped into
cycles that consisted of a repetition trial of each difficulty level, as General discussion
well as a single-presentation trial of each difficulty level, yielding
4 trials per cycle, and eight cycles for the entire word learning The present study examined the relationship between work-
task. Within each cycle, the order of the 4 trials was randomized, ing memory ability and performance in a spaced repetition
and the first cycle was administered as a practice cycle. learning paradigm as a function of ITD. Results from two

Table 2 Experiment 2: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting repetition benefits

Easy intervening task Difficult intervening task

Variable B SE B β Δ R2 B SE B β Δ R2

Step 1
Single-trial recall .74 .04 .86** .74** .69 .06 .76** .58**
Step 2
Single-trial recall .70 .05 .82** .64 .06 .70**
Working memory .12 .06 .11* .01* .28 .07 .23** .05**

*p < .05
**p < .01
346 Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347

individuals. Bjork and Allen (1970) suggested that a more

difficult intervening task leads to more variable encoding
across study repetitions. Indeed, past aging research suggests
that young adults (who tend to have increased working mem-
ory ability, relative to older adults) have a higher rate of
contextual fluctuation and greater encoding of contextual
elements than do older adults (Balota, Duchek, & Paullin,
1989). Both the study-phase retrieval and encoding variability
accounts may contribute to the present pattern of results.
In sum, the present results demonstrate the importance of
considering individual differences when investigating the
influence of repetition learning. In fact, the different patterns
of results observed by Bjork and Allen (1970) and Roediger
and Crowder (1975) regarding the influence of the ITD
between the repetitions, reviewed in the introduction, may
indicate differences in working memory abilities and diffi-
Fig. 2 Predicted standardized repetition performance as a function of culty of the intervening tasks. Indeed, there appears to be a
intervening task difficulty (ITD) for mean working memory ability and
±2 SD in Experiment 2
balance among multiple variables (difficulty of the to-be-
remembered material, ITD, and individual differences in
working memory ability) that modulates the memorial con-
experiments revealed a crossover interaction between work- sequences of spaced repetition. In the present study, the
ing memory ability and ITD on the benefits of repetition. As conditions that were optimal for high-ability individuals
predicted, the interaction reflected a larger benefit of repeat- were not optimal for lower ability individuals, thereby high-
ed study when events were separated by an easy intervening lighting the need to consider the entire range of individual
task rather than a difficult intervening task for low working abilities when exploring ways of optimizing learning.
memory individuals but a larger repetition benefit when
presentations were separated by a difficult intervening task Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Joel Myerson
rather than an easy intervening task for high working mem- and Jill Shelton for their feedback and constructive comments about
ory individuals. earlier versions of this project, as well as Michael Strube for his help in
The crossover interaction observed in the present study the analyses and interpretation of the data. This work was supported by
NIA Training Grant AG00030 and PO1 AGO3991.
suggests that there is a trade-off between memory demands
and intervening task demands that influences the effective-
ness of repetition learning. If high working memory ability
allows for better maintenance of primary task goals through References
situations of low and high interference, more effortful re-
trieval should promote greater benefits of repetition in the Appleton-Knapp, S. L., Bjork, R. A., & Wickens, T. D. (2005).
latter condition. In contrast, for low working memory indi- Examining the spacing effect in advertising: Encoding variability,
viduals, successful reminding in high-interference situations retrieval processes, and their interaction. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32, 266–276.
may be too difficult (i.e., not desirable), as compared with
Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Paullin, R. (1989). Age-related differ-
low-interference situations. This seems to be the case in the ences in the impact of spacing, lag, and retention interval. Psy-
present study. In fact, as is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, if an chology and Aging, 4, 3–9.
intervening task is very easy, repetition performance may be Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B.,
Loftis, B.,...Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project.
better for low working memory ability individuals, relative
Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
to high working memory ability individuals. Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. G. (2010). What makes distributed
With respect to possible underlying mechanisms of the practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228–247.
spacing effect, our results are consistent with accounts that Bjork, R. A., & Allen, T. W. (1970). The spacing effect: Consolidation
or differential encoding? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
suggest that a stimulus’ first presentation is retrieved on its
Behavior, 9, 567–572.
second presentation (e.g., remindings, study-phase retrieval Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the
accounts). Of course, the reported regression analyses con- training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.),
trolled for differences in episodic memory, which should Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cam-
bridge: MIT Press.
influence the likelihood of reminding. Thus, one must consid-
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in
er why a more difficult intervening task increases the benefit working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and
of repeated study to a greater extent for high working memory Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Psychon Bull Rev (2013) 20:341–347 347

Duchek, J. M., Balota, D. A., Tse, C. S., Holtzman, D. M., Fagan, A. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The Univer-
M., & Goate, A. M. (2009). The utility of intraindividual vari- sity of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment
ability in selective attention tasks as an early marker for Alz- norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
heimer's Disease. Neuropsychology, 23, 746–758. Oberauer, K. (2005). Control of the contents of working memory - a
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working comparison of two paradigms and two age groups. Journal of
memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31,
In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 714–728.
44, pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier. Roediger, H. L., & Crowder, R. G. (1975). The spacing of lists in free
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). WM capacity, proactive interfer- recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 590–602.
ence, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retriev- Thios, S. J., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1976). Effects of repetition as a
al. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and function of study-phase retrieval. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Cognition, 26, 336–358. Verbal Behavior, 15, 529–536.
Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting. Psychological
rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychol- Review, 64(1), 49–60.
ogy, 55, 352–358. Verkoeijen, P., & Bouwmeester, S. (2008). Using latent class modeling
McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & to detect bimodality in spacing effect data. Journal of Memory
Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship between working mem- and Language, 59, 545–555.
ory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for a common Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edi-
executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222–243. tion. San Antonio: Pearson Assessment.