To make this a little more concrete, at repetition number 5 (on the axis) a reader has reviewed all 112 questions in the essay 5 times.
-
Show this thread
-
And the y axis shows the total demonstrated retention. So, for instance, after 5 repetitions, most readers are up around 3,000 days of demonstrated retention. That means an average of about 3,000 / 112 ~ 27 days per question in the essay.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
That's pretty good, I think. If you're anything like me, a few weeks after reading something you have only a hazy memory. By contrast, these people have, at very low cost (of which more below), got a month or so of demonstrated retention across more than 100 detailed questions
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
This is the big hoped-for advantage of spaced repetition, and what makes it counterintuitive and unusual: you get _exponential returns_ for increased effort.
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likesShow this thread -
It typically takes about 80 minutes of review time to get to 5 reviews. That's for an essay which takes about 3 hours to read - review for 80 extra minutes, and you can remember nearly all the details for about a month.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
We think that with just a little extra marginal effort you'll remember those details - the entire body of knowledge - for more like a year. That's the benefit of exponential returns. But the prototype hasn't been out long enough to test that.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Here's the actual cumulative review time, rising roughly linearly (as we'd expect) with the number of repetitions.pic.twitter.com/GcbN9tjGoU
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Interestingly, as questions are repeated, people seem to get a little faster at answering them. Here's the marginal review time, showing a slight decrease.pic.twitter.com/2ieATLswPV
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
That is, the marginal review time is going down, even though the time between reviews is increasing exponentially.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
Any way to test against a review period that is linear too? I understand that this tests relative to the "ideal" retention cycle, but I wonder whether the results would be similar or not for non-increasing review intervals.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We'd need to redesign the system, enroll a bunch of users, and wait a few months. So: not easily, no.
-
-
Replying to @michael_nielsen
Yeah, I don't suppose it would be easy. But I guess it's ok as you're really just testing efficacy of the current design, and whether linear or exponential testing is better is far and away a secondary concern atm. Congrats with your results thus far!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.