Background Increases in self-paced study time can have very little effect on subsequent recall (“the labor-in-vain effect”). 1 However, recent research suggests that test performance is better when students are allowed control over study time (self-pacing) than when they study items under fixed presentation rates. 2 Previous research on self-pacing has primarily focused on single-trial learning, which might not be representative for real life learning. An open question is whether or not self-paced study during multi-trial learning results in better memory than studying with a fixed presentation rate. Presentation rate can have a profound effect on learning and retention of paired associates. For instance, we recently found that very fast (e.g., 1 s) and slow (e.g., 16 s) presentation rates result in poor recall performance compared to intermediate presentation rates (e.g., 4 s). 3 In the present study we compared a variety of fixed (imposed) presentation rates to a condition where participants were allowed to self-pace. During self-paced study, participants controlled the presentation rate of individual study episodes and they could differentially allocate study time to different items in a list. Self-Paced Study Beats Fixed-Paced Study Mario de Jonge, Huib K. Tabbers, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Yoonhee Jang, University of California, San Diego, Diane Pecher, and René Zeelenberg, Erasmus University Rotterdam Results & Conclusion Overall, self-paced study resulted in better recall performance than fixed presentation rates. With the exception of the 12x2s condition, self-paced study outperformed (imposed) fixed-pace study. During self-paced study, presentation time decreased over the course of learning. Correlation analysis suggested that the general benefit of self- pacing might be the result of differential allocation of study time to items as a function of item difficulty. Participants spend more self-paced time on the more difficult items. References 1. Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self- paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676-686. 2. Tullis, J. G. & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 109-118. 3. De Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R. (2012). The effect of study time distribution on learning and retention: a Goldilocks principle for presentation rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 405-412. Correspondence: dejonge@fsw.eur.nl Recall performance Method Participants 128 university students (native speakers of English) Materials - Four lists of 12 Dutch-English word pairs (e.g., kikker – frog) Design & procedure - We used a 2 x 4 mixed design with fixed-paced vs. self- paced as wthin-subjects factor and presentation rate as between-subjects factor. - Self-paced study: Participants were free to study the word pairs at their own pace and could freely allocate study time to the items in the list. - Four fixed presentation rates: 24x1s, 12x2s, 6x4s, and 3x8s (e.g., in the 24x1s condition word pairs were presented 24 times with a presentation rate of 1 s per pair). - Total study time per list was equated for all conditions Final test - Cued recall (e.g., kikker - ?) Self-paced study duration Study time allocation 24x1s 12x2s 8x4s 3x8s 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fixed-paced Self-paced Fixed Presentation Rate Proportion Correct Recall 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Proportion Correct Recall Total Presentation Time (ms) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Study Cycle Average Study Time (ms)