{ "schema_version": 1, "dataset_version": "1.1.0", "slug": "memory", "title": "Memory", "question": "How can I remember what I learn without confusing retention with application?", "summary": "Improve retention with retrieval, interference management, and conservative post-learning practices while separating memory from skill transfer.", "canonical_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/topics/memory/", "json_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/topics/memory/index.json", "api_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/api/v1/hubs.json", "coverage_status": "trusted-protocols", "coverage_note": "6 trusted protocol recommendations available.", "topics": [ { "id": "memory", "title": "Memory", "description": "Encoding, retrieval, consolidation, forgetting, and remembering what matters.", "canonical_id": "brali:topic:memory" } ], "protocols": [ { "canonical_id": "brali:protocol:active-recall-test-yourself", "protocol_id": "brali:active-recall-test-yourself", "slug": "active-recall-test-yourself", "url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/life-os/active-recall-test-yourself/", "title": "Active Recall: Close the Notes and Make Memory Work", "description": "Before rereading, hide the source and try to produce the answer from memory. Then check it, fix the misses, and practice application separately if the real goal is solving, speaking, writing, or doing. Familiarity feels nice; retrieval tells you what is actually available without the page in front of you.", "action": "Choose a small set of material you want to retain. Hide the source and answer a question, explain the idea, or write what you remember. Check immediately enough to catch errors and repair them. Then, if success means solving, writing, speaking, calculating, or performing, practice that outcome too. Memory practice is useful; it is not a teleportation device to skill.", "check_in": "What could I retrieve without looking? What was missing or wrong? If the real goal is application, could I actually use the knowledge in a relevant task?", "evidence": { "status": "reviewed", "source_recorded": true, "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-18" }, "is_flagship_100": true, "topic_ids": [ "memory", "skill-learning" ], "method_ids": [ "retrieval-practice" ], "hub_score": 1192.4 }, { "canonical_id": "brali:protocol:prequestions-before-learning", "protocol_id": "brali:prequestions-before-learning", "slug": "prequestions-before-learning", "url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/life-os/prequestions-before-learning/", "title": "Ask a Few Questions Before You Start Learning", "description": "Before reading, watching, or studying new material, try a few questions about the specific information you want to learn. Attempt an answer, then study and check it. Evidence supports better learning for the prequestioned information, not a general boost to everything else.", "action": "Choose a small set of questions that point to information you genuinely want to learn. Before opening the explanation, reading the chapter, or watching the lesson, make a brief attempt at each answer even if you are unsure. Then study normally, paying attention when the material resolves those questions. Afterward, check the answers against the source. Use this to target important information, not as a claim that every unasked detail will also be learned better.", "check_in": "After studying, can I answer the questions accurately without looking, and did the questions point me toward information that actually mattered?", "evidence": { "status": "reviewed", "source_recorded": true, "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10075-7", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-15" }, "is_flagship_100": true, "topic_ids": [ "memory", "skill-learning", "metacognition" ], "method_ids": [], "hub_score": 1192.4 }, { "canonical_id": "brali:protocol:ai-learning-attempt-feedback-retest", "protocol_id": "brali:ai-learning-attempt-feedback-retest", "slug": "ai-learning-attempt-feedback-retest", "url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/life-os/ai-learning-attempt-feedback-retest/", "title": "Attempt First, Use AI for Feedback, Retest Without It", "description": "For learning tasks, make a genuine attempt before asking AI to explain, critique, or extend your work, then reproduce the target skill without assistance. Recent evidence on generative AI in education is mixed enough that the workflow should preserve learner activity rather than assume the chatbot itself improves learning.", "action": "Name the skill you are actually trying to acquire. Attempt a problem, explanation, translation, derivation, or answer unaided. Ask AI to identify gaps, give a contrasting example, or explain one sticking point. Check the feedback against trusted material when accuracy matters, then perform a fresh attempt without AI.", "check_in": "Can I now perform or explain the target skill without leaning on the AI output?", "evidence": { "status": "reviewed", "source_recorded": true, "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-026-11665-9", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-15" }, "is_flagship_100": true, "topic_ids": [ "skill-learning", "metacognition", "memory" ], "method_ids": [], "hub_score": 1192.4 }, { "canonical_id": "brali:protocol:self-explain-what-you-learn", "protocol_id": "brali:self-explain-what-you-learn", "slug": "self-explain-what-you-learn", "url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/life-os/self-explain-what-you-learn/", "title": "Explain What You Just Learned in Your Own Words", "description": "After a meaningful chunk of digital learning, pause and explain the idea, relationship, or step in your own words, then compare with the source and correct gaps. Meta-analytic evidence supports self-explanation in digital learning, with meaningful variation across contexts and material types.", "action": "Study a manageable chunk, then look away from the explanation and produce a brief self-explanation: what the idea means, why a step follows, how it connects to what you already know, or when it would apply. Compare your explanation with the source, identify one gap or error, and revise it. Use the prompts that fit the material; do not turn every paragraph into a compulsory monologue.", "check_in": "Can I explain the idea accurately enough to reconstruct the key relationship or step, and what did I have to correct after checking the source?", "evidence": { "status": "reviewed", "source_recorded": true, "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10001-x", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-15" }, "is_flagship_100": true, "topic_ids": [ "skill-learning", "metacognition", "memory" ], "method_ids": [], "hub_score": 1192.4 }, { "canonical_id": "brali:protocol:spaced-recall-coach", "protocol_id": "brali:spaced-recall-coach", "slug": "spaced-recall-coach", "url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/life-os/spaced-recall-coach/", "title": "Separate Review Sessions Instead of Cramming", "description": "For verbal material you need to recall later, divide repeated study across separate sessions instead of concentrating the same planned review into one sitting. Choose the gap in relation to the intended retention period, then check recall and adjust rather than following one universal schedule.", "action": "Choose one set of verbal material and decide how long you need to retain it. Split the planned repetitions across at least two sessions separated by time. Use a longer gap when the required retention period is longer, then check final recall and adjust the next schedule instead of treating one interval as universally optimal.", "check_in": "Did I separate the study episodes rather than cram them together, and did the chosen gap fit the period over which I needed to remember the material?", "evidence": { "status": "reviewed", "source_recorded": true, "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-22" }, "is_flagship_100": true, "topic_ids": [ "memory" ], "method_ids": [], "hub_score": 1192.4 }, { "canonical_id": "brali:protocol:avoid-list-interference-memory-retention", "protocol_id": "brali:avoid-list-interference-memory-retention", "slug": "avoid-list-interference-memory-retention", "url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/life-os/avoid-list-interference-memory-retention/", "title": "Try Quiet Wakeful Rest After Learning", "description": "After learning declarative material you want to remember, try a short period of quiet, minimally stimulating wakeful rest before switching to another demanding task. Treat it as a personal memory experiment, not a general learning upgrade or a universal ten-minute rule.", "action": "When you finish a focused memory-heavy learning episode, put aside the material and spend a brief period awake in a quiet, low-stimulation setting. Avoid immediately switching to another cognitively demanding task. Choose a duration that is practical for you, then return to normal activity. Do not use the pause as a substitute for self-testing, active review, or other learning methods.", "check_in": "What did I learn, did I actually create a low-interference pause afterward, and when I checked later did recall seem better, unchanged, or worse than usual?", "evidence": { "status": "reviewed", "source_recorded": true, "source_url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-025-02778-3", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-18" }, "is_flagship_100": true, "topic_ids": [ "memory" ], "method_ids": [], "hub_score": 1192.4 } ], "evidence_decisions": [ { "id": "distributed-practice-verbal-recall-boundary-2006", "decision": "support-existing", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-22", "source_title": "Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis", "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354", "source_type": "meta-analysis", "citation_text": "Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, Rohrer D. Psychological Bulletin. 2006;132(3):354-380.", "supported_claim": "For verbal material measured by later recall, separating repeated study episodes by a meaningful interval generally supports better retention than concentrating the same material into massed study. The spacing associated with the best later recall tended to increase as the intended retention interval increased. For material that must be retained over months or years, the reviewed evidence supports distributing study across days or longer rather than completing all review in one sitting or one day. These findings justify the rewritten Brali action only within a verbal-recall boundary and without one universal schedule.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "One fixed daily, weekly or software-generated interval is optimal for all material and retention targets.", "Twenty minutes every day is superior to two hours in one sitting by a specific ratio.", "An 85 to 90 percent retrieval-success threshold identifies the correct next interval.", "Expanding intervals are reliably superior to fixed intervals; the review described the available evidence as limited, variable and insufficient for that conclusion.", "Longer spacing is always better; the review found that intervals can become too long and that the useful interval depends on the retention target.", "The source identifies testing, feedback or deliberate recall attempts as the causal mechanism of the spacing effect.", "The source establishes consolidation windows, neuroplasticity, reconsolidation or another biological mechanism for the public protocol.", "The result extends beyond later verbal recall to complex skills, problem solving, creative work, workplace performance or broader transfer outcomes.", "A spaced schedule guarantees durable memory for an individual learner.", "Children's long-term retention over months or years is established with the same confidence as the young-adult evidence.", "Daily streaks, adherence scores, AI coaching or app reminders are evidence-supported components of distributed practice." ], "limitations": [ "The synthesis was restricted to verbal memory tasks measured by recall and deliberately excluded recognition, frequency judgments and the heterogeneous skill-learning literature.", "The evidence base was dominated by young adults; the authors reported very little middle-aged and older-adult evidence and insufficient long-term child data for confident generalization.", "Many studies did not report the variance data needed for effect-size calculation, so several analyses relied on accuracy differences and included fewer effect-size estimates.", "Published null findings may be underrepresented because of the file-drawer problem.", "Study materials, presentation schedules, retention intervals and experimental procedures varied substantially.", "Some historical studies confounded longer spacing with more relearning trials; the review examined this problem but could not remove every design limitation from the literature.", "Binning inter-study and retention intervals supported broad patterns but reduced the ability to recommend exact intervals.", "The useful interval depends jointly on spacing and the later retention target, and the authors stated that exact long-term optimization could not be specified with certainty.", "Evidence comparing expanding and fixed schedules was sparse and inconsistent, with large between-study variability.", "The synthesis addresses later recall, not broader comprehension, transfer, motivation, study adherence or real-world performance.", "The review was published in 2006 and should be rechecked against newer syntheses before adding more precise scheduling claims." ], "topic_ids": [ "memory" ] }, { "id": "prequestions-targeted-learning-boundary-2025", "decision": "propose-protocol", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-15", "source_title": "The Effect of Prequestions on Learning: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis", "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10075-7", "source_type": "meta-analysis", "citation_text": "King-Shepard QW, Walker J, Nokes-Malach TJ, Carpenter SK, Fraundorf SH. Educational Psychology Review. 2025;37:115.", "supported_claim": "Prequestions can improve later learning of the specific information they target. The meta-analysis reported g = 0.66 for prequestioned information and g = 0.01 for non-prequestioned information; feedback alongside prequestions was associated with stronger targeted learning.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "Prequestions improve learning of the entire lesson.", "Any question asked before learning will be beneficial.", "There is one evidence-backed optimal number of prequestions.", "A wrong first answer is itself sufficient without later exposure or correction.", "Prequestions replace retrieval practice, practice problems, or feedback after learning." ], "limitations": [ "The average benefit is specific to prequestioned information rather than a broad benefit to all content.", "The meta-analysis does not establish one universal question count, timing rule, or content format.", "Effect sizes summarize heterogeneous studies and do not guarantee the same result for an individual learning session." ], "topic_ids": [ "memory", "skill-learning", "metacognition" ] }, { "id": "retrieval-procedural-application-2026", "decision": "challenge-existing", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-18", "source_title": "Mixed effects of retrieval practice on the acquisition of procedural knowledge in verb spelling education", "source_url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475226000629", "source_type": "primary-study", "citation_text": "Ophuis-Cox FHA, Catrysse L, Camp G. Learning and Instruction. 2026;104:102377.", "supported_claim": "Adding retrieval practice to worked examples improved long-term retention of the spelling rules in this classroom study, but the combined group did not outperform worked examples alone on correct rule application after one week.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "Remembering a rule better means a learner can apply it better.", "Retrieval practice alone is sufficient practice for procedural skill application.", "This one primary-school spelling study establishes a general failure of retrieval practice for transfer or skill learning.", "The specific classroom protocol should be copied as a universal learning recipe." ], "limitations": [ "The sample was 105 fourth-grade pupils learning Dutch verb spelling in a small number of intact classes and schools.", "The comparison tested retrieval practice added to worked examples, not retrieval practice in isolation.", "The target was one form of procedural knowledge and the study does not establish identical boundaries in other domains or age groups.", "The result supports separating retention from application outcomes, not concluding that retrieval practice is ineffective for complex learning generally." ], "topic_ids": [ "language-learning", "memory", "skill-learning" ] }, { "id": "self-explanation-digital-learning-boundary-2025", "decision": "propose-protocol", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-15", "source_title": "Enhancing Academic Performance Through Self-Explanation in Digital Learning Environments (DLEs): A Three-Level Meta-Analysis", "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10001-x", "source_type": "meta-analysis", "citation_text": "Tan LP, Gong SY, Wang YJ, Guo XR, Xu XZ, Wang YQ. Educational Psychology Review. 2025;37:20.", "supported_claim": "Self-explanation in digital learning environments had a positive average effect on academic performance (reported g = 0.46), with positive average effects for retention and transfer. Effects were moderated by pacing and knowledge type, with larger effects reported for learner-centered pacing and conceptual or mixed knowledge than for procedural knowledge.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "Self-explanation is always better than other learning strategies.", "One explanation prompt or modality is universally optimal.", "Every paragraph should be self-explained.", "The average effect applies unchanged outside digital learning environments.", "A fluent explanation is accurate without checking it against the source." ], "limitations": [ "The reviewed evidence is specifically about digital learning environments.", "The meta-analysis reports heterogeneity and moderation rather than a uniform effect across all settings.", "The authors identify the quality and standardization of self-explanations as areas needing further research." ], "topic_ids": [ "skill-learning", "metacognition", "memory" ] }, { "id": "testing-effect-direct-forward-2026", "decision": "challenge-existing", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-18", "source_title": "Research on the testing effect routinely conflates direct and forward testing effects: A meta-analysis of testing effects with free recall", "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42258276/", "source_type": "meta-analysis", "citation_text": "Gereau AD, Mulligan NW. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2026. Online ahead of print.", "supported_claim": "Retrieval practice can improve memory, but the literature commonly labeled as the testing effect mixes at least two distinct effects. In this meta-analysis, 66% of included testing effects came from mixed studies and 34% from direct studies, with mixed studies producing larger effects.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "A single undifferentiated testing-effect estimate describes one coherent memory phenomenon.", "Evidence from a mixed design can automatically be interpreted as a direct benefit for the tested material.", "Retrieval practice has the same mechanism or effect across tested material and subsequently learned material.", "A broad testing-effect citation is sufficient evidence for skill transfer or correct application." ], "limitations": [ "The meta-analysis focuses on free-recall testing-effect studies rather than every form of retrieval practice or every educational outcome.", "Its main contribution is separation of direct and forward effects; it does not negate the broader evidence that retrieval practice can support retention.", "The reported mixture of study designs means older aggregate claims may need narrower interpretation rather than wholesale rejection." ], "topic_ids": [ "language-learning", "memory", "skill-learning" ] }, { "id": "testing-versus-restudy-retention-boundary-2014", "decision": "support-existing", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-22", "source_title": "The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect", "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559", "source_type": "meta-analysis", "citation_text": "Rowland CA. Psychological Bulletin. 2014;140(6):1432-1463.", "supported_claim": "Across the included testing-versus-restudy literature, retrieval testing produced better later retention on average than equivalent-duration restudy. The pooled random-effects estimate was positive, but effects varied substantially across studies and testing conditions. This supports Brali's bounded recommendation to retrieve information from memory, check the answer, and use that loop when retention is the target.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "Active recall improves every kind of learning outcome.", "Better retention automatically produces better application, transfer, problem solving or procedural performance.", "One pooled testing-effect estimate describes one invariant mechanism across all retrieval-practice designs.", "A specific number of questions, repetitions, minutes or percentage target is evidence-based from this meta-analysis.", "Retrieval practice always outperforms restudy for every learner, item, delay and test format.", "Recognition testing, cued recall and free recall produce interchangeable effects.", "The meta-analysis establishes a single neurological or cognitive mechanism that Brali should present as the explanation for why retrieval works.", "A memory benefit demonstrated against restudy validates Brali's protocol for skills whose real criterion is performance or application." ], "limitations": [ "Between-study heterogeneity in the primary analysis was very high, so the pooled mean does not describe one uniform effect across designs or contexts.", "The review deliberately restricted the quantitative synthesis to testing-versus-equivalent-restudy contrasts and does not represent every retrieval-practice paradigm.", "Testing benefits varied with methodological factors including initial test format, retention interval and feedback.", "Many contributing studies used controlled experimental learning tasks and college samples, which limits direct extrapolation to every real-world learning context.", "The review's main outcome is retention; it does not establish that remembered information can be applied correctly in a novel task or procedure.", "Theoretical findings did not provide one complete cohesive mechanism for all testing phenomena, so Brali should avoid mechanism decoration.", "A positive average effect does not imply that every individual effect was positive; the reviewed distribution included negative and null estimates." ], "topic_ids": [ "memory", "skill-learning" ] }, { "id": "vocabulary-pretesting-guess-feedback-boundary-2026", "decision": "propose-protocol", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-02", "source_title": "Duolingo-inspired pretesting with words and pictures improves vocabulary learning", "source_url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-026-00708-y", "source_type": "primary-study", "citation_text": "Chua TJE, Pan SC. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2026;11:20.", "supported_claim": "For adults learning new, concrete second-language vocabulary paired with images, adding a forced multiple-choice guess before immediately revealing the correct pairing can produce a modest short-delay memory advantage over simply reading the pair. A bounded Brali protocol may therefore use a cue → guess → immediate correct feedback → later recall sequence for vocabulary practice, while keeping the claim limited to this learning format and time horizon.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "Making errors before learning is generally better than studying correct information.", "Pretesting improves grammar, reading comprehension, conversation skill, pronunciation or complex skill learning.", "The observed advantage has been shown to persist over days, weeks or months.", "The exact 8-second guess window, 5-second feedback window, four-option format or image format is optimal.", "Multiple-choice pretesting always improves later multiple-choice performance; Experiment 3 did not show a significant multiple-choice advantage.", "The effect proves that error correction, associative strengthening or any single proposed mechanism caused the benefit.", "The findings generalize to children, advanced language learners, non-concrete vocabulary or learners outside the sampled online populations." ], "limitations": [ "All criterial tests followed a short same-session distractor period rather than a delayed retention interval, so long-term retention was not established.", "The studies used concrete Spanish nouns paired with images; vocabulary type and language-learning context were narrow.", "Participants were adult Prolific users from English-speaking countries and exclusions were substantial in several experiments.", "Pretesting trials included up to 8 seconds of cue-only guessing before the same 5 seconds of correct pair exposure used in reading, so total cue exposure was longer in the pretesting condition.", "Initial guess accuracy was about 35–38%, raising the possibility of some prior familiarity despite exclusions; the authors note that benefits also appeared for incorrectly guessed items.", "Learning condition was primarily within-subjects, and the authors identify between-subject replication as a future research need.", "Multiple-choice benefits were not significant in Experiment 3, so recognition effects were less uniform than cued-recall effects." ], "topic_ids": [ "memory", "language-learning" ] }, { "id": "wakeful-rest-complex-learning-challenge-2026", "decision": "challenge-existing", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-28", "source_title": "Wakeful rest and memory consolidation in an ecologically valid educational setting: no benefit over distractor tasks", "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12945945/", "source_type": "primary-study", "citation_text": "Seban P, Šikl R, Prošek T, Urban K. Psychological Research. 2026;90:42.", "supported_claim": "The existing Brali wakeful-rest protocol must not promise better comprehension or long-term retention for complex educational reading. In this more ecologically valid randomized study, eight minutes of post-reading wakeful rest did not produce a consistent advantage over social media, math or similar-text reading on immediate or one-week factual and conceptual tests. Keep the protocol narrow: it is an optional declarative-memory tactic, not a general learning upgrade.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "This single study proves that wakeful rest never helps learning.", "Social-media use immediately after learning is harmless in every setting.", "All post-learning distractor tasks are equivalent.", "Autogenic training or guided rest is ineffective for every outcome.", "The null classroom result cancels the broader declarative-memory meta-analysis.", "The findings generalize unchanged beyond university students and the specific expository material tested." ], "limitations": [ "The study used one expository learning task in a university-student population.", "The wakeful-rest condition used an autogenic-training implementation and therefore does not represent every possible quiet-rest procedure.", "Only one eight-minute post-learning duration was tested.", "The delayed test used different but conceptually aligned questions rather than identical items from the immediate test.", "A single null study cannot establish absence of a wakeful-rest effect across all complex learning tasks or populations." ], "topic_ids": [ "memory" ] }, { "id": "wakeful-rest-memory-2026", "decision": "propose-protocol", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-18", "source_title": "Should we all just take 10? A meta-analysis of wakeful rest", "source_url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-025-02778-3", "source_type": "meta-analysis", "citation_text": "Parra D, Zhang Z, Radvansky G. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2026;33:49.", "supported_claim": "A short period of quiet, minimally interfering wakeful rest after learning can reduce forgetting on average. The pooled effect is substantially smaller and less consistent in healthy young to middle-aged adults than in older adults or patient samples.", "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [ "Ten minutes is an optimal or universally evidence-based dose.", "Everyone will remember more after post-learning rest.", "Wakeful rest is equivalent to sleep or replaces adequate sleep.", "A specific posture, eye-closure rule, breathing pattern, or rehearsal instruction is required.", "The protocol is a treatment for memory impairment or dementia." ], "limitations": [ "There was moderate to large between-study heterogeneity overall.", "The overall prediction interval included negative effects, so future studies are not guaranteed to find a benefit.", "Healthy young to middle-aged adults had the smallest pooled effect (g=0.20 in the authors' group analysis).", "Patient studies were small and showed funnel-plot asymmetry consistent with possible publication bias.", "Learning materials, interference tasks, test procedures, age, and clinical status varied across studies.", "The meta-analysis concerns declarative memory and does not justify broad claims about skill acquisition, creativity, focus, or general intelligence." ], "topic_ids": [ "memory" ] } ], "research_watch": [ { "id": "crossref:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102377", "title": "Mixed effects of retrieval practice on the acquisition of procedural knowledge in verb spelling education", "status": "challenge-existing", "publication_date": "2026-08-01", "reference_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102377", "topic_ids": [ "language-learning", "memory", "skill-learning" ], "evidence_state": "discovery-only", "note": "Discovery metadata is not reviewed evidence. Read the Evidence Decision when one exists." }, { "id": "crossref:10.1037/xlm0001634", "title": "Research on the testing effect routinely conflates direct and forward testing effects: A meta-analysis of testing effects with free recall", "status": "challenge-existing", "publication_date": "2026-06-08", "reference_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001634", "topic_ids": [ "language-learning", "memory", "skill-learning" ], "evidence_state": "discovery-only", "note": "Discovery metadata is not reviewed evidence. Read the Evidence Decision when one exists." }, { "id": "crossref:10.1186/s41235-026-00708-y", "title": "Duolingo-inspired pretesting with words and pictures improves vocabulary learning", "status": "propose-protocol", "publication_date": "2026-03-06", "reference_url": "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00708-y", "topic_ids": [ "memory", "language-learning" ], "evidence_state": "discovery-only", "note": "Discovery metadata is not reviewed evidence. Read the Evidence Decision when one exists." }, { "id": "crossref:10.1007/s00426-026-02265-x", "title": "Wakeful rest and memory consolidation in an ecologically valid educational setting: no benefit over distractor tasks", "status": "challenge-existing", "publication_date": "2026-02-26", "reference_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-026-02265-x", "topic_ids": [ "memory" ], "evidence_state": "discovery-only", "note": "Discovery metadata is not reviewed evidence. Read the Evidence Decision when one exists." } ], "related_topics": [ { "id": "skill-learning", "title": "Skill Learning", "canonical_id": "brali:topic:skill-learning" }, { "id": "metacognition", "title": "Metacognition", "canonical_id": "brali:topic:metacognition" } ], "related_methods": [ { "id": "retrieval-practice", "title": "Retrieval Practice", "canonical_id": "brali:method:retrieval-practice" } ], "trust_note": "Protocol recommendations come only from the reviewed/practical trusted feed. Research-watch items are discovery metadata, not evidence. Reviewed Evidence Decisions define the research claims and boundaries shown here." }