Abstract:

The forward testing effect describes how testing previously learned material could improve participants long-term memory for later learning of new material when continuously exposed to various information. This has been verified using different language materials. However, the effect of forward testing on spatial path learning requires further study.
This study selected 112 participants randomly and conducted two experiments to explore the forward test effect of visuospatial route learning in different directions in the same scene (Experiment 1). Further, it investigated the forward test effect of visuospatial route learning in various settings (Experiment 2). The spatial route information memory method was adopted based on the extensive experimental procedure formed by the forward test effect. Through a sequence of sites in a virtual route setting, participants were required to comprehend and recollect the structures that passed on the route. Furthermore, the exercise ended with a sequential recall test. A total of 52 participants were randomly assigned to the test and repeated study groups in Experiment 1. Eight common landmark buildings, such as hospitals and schools, were selected to form four different route information. After learning approximately 1~3 pieces of route information, the repeated study group re-learned the route information. Further, the test group recalled the order of the buildings passing through the route information as required. When learning about Route 4 regarding either the test condition or the re-learn condition, it was necessary to recall the order in which the route passed through buildings. The forward test effect of memorizing route information in different scenarios was explored in Experiment 2 with 60 participants. Unlike Experiment 1, the participants in Experiment 2 learned four different routes, each containing a different building. The experimental procedure was the same as that used in Experiment 1.
The results of experiment 1 using a 2 (group: test group, repetitive learning group) × 2 (test results: correct rate, interference rate) analysis of variance (ANOVA), which showed a significant interaction between groups and test results [F(1, 50) = 32.157, p < 0.001, η²= 0.39, see Figure 4]. Further simple effect analysis found that, the recall accuracy of spatial path information in the test group was significantly higher than in that the repeated-learning group (0.74 vs 0.32, t (50) = 5.95, p < 0.001, d = 0.64). Moreover, the active interference generated when recalling the fourth path information was considerably lower than that in the repeated-learning group (0.07 vs 0.16, t (50) = 2.831, p = 0.007, d = 0.37). The results of Experiment 2 showed that there was a positive test effect for different scene background information. 2 (groups: test group, repetitive learning group) × 2 (test results: correct rate, interference rate) analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant interaction between groups and test results. The interaction between group and test results was significant [F(1, 58) = 45.483, p < 0.001, η² = 0.44, see Figure 7], the recall accuracy of spatial path information in the test group was significantly higher than in that the repeated-learning group (0.53 vs 0.24, t (58) = 5.40, p < 0.001, d = 0.57). The proactive interference in route information 4 under test condition was significantly lower than that repeated-learning condition (0.07 vs 0.27, t (58) = 5.612, p < 0.001, d = 0.59). This further proves that the application background of the forward test effect in route-information learning was extensive. More importantly, by comparing the two experimental results horizontally, it was found that different interference levels of previous information have different effects on learning following new information (Experiment 1: Figure 3 reports changes in the correct recall rate as well as the interference rate of the test group after each test in routes1-4.The recall accuracy of route 1~4 was 0.62, 0.38, 0.56, 0.74. F(3, 75) = 9.41, p < 0.001, η² = 0.27. The proactive interference rate of route 2~4 was 0.14, 0.13, 0.07. F(2, 50) = 3.28, p = 0.046, η² = 0.12. Experiment 2: The recall accuracy of route 1~4 was 0.70, 0.59, 0.73, 0.53. F (3, 87) = 4.57, p = 0.005, η² = 0.14. And the proactive interference rate of route 2~4 was 0.02, 0.04, 0.07. F(2, 58) = 4.32, p = 0.018, η² = 0.13, see Figure 6). This is manifested in the difference in the interference rate caused by the difficulty of “isolation” among materials, including the trend that the correct rate decreases when the interference rate increases and the correct rate increases when the interference rate decreases. All of these directly reveal the forward direction−the importance of counteracting proactive interference in testing the effects.
In summary, this study verified the existence of the forward test effect in the path learning of different directions in the same scene and the path learning in various settings. Extending the study of the forward testing effect on learning visuospatial path information will enrich the exploration of the forward testing effect in spatial memory. Additionally, this study found that different levels of interference from previously learned information affect the subsequent learning of new information. The findings provide direct experimental evidence for proactive interference reduction theory.

Key words: retrieval practice, forward testing effect, spatial memory, route information