Recall from episodic memory has been shown to enhance both memory for the retrieved information (e.g., relative to a restudy control condition; the testing effect, or TE) and memory for different, subsequently studied materials (the forward testing effect, or FTE). Hence, the TE may be subject to an FTE confound when training in a TE experiment involves either testing prior to restudy or when restudied and tested items are randomly mixed. Across two cued-recall TE experiments, we show that (1) a potent FTE confound exists in the test-first but not the mixed training design, (2) there are no other evident learning related interactions between restudied and tested items across three frequently used training phase task orderings, and (3) the predictions of the dual-memory model of test-enhanced learning – which posits that a test trial creates a memory that is separate from the initially encoded study memory, yielding two routes to retrieval for tested items – are held both when there is and is not a confounding FTE. Further, our results yielded no evidence for two accounts of the FTE (the proactive interference and reset of encoding hypotheses) as applied to cued recall but are consistent with two alternative accounts (the strategy change and increasing effort hypotheses). Through distribution analyses we identify a novel and potent FTE individual differences effect that can be accommodated by the latter accounts. Finally, we show that at least three large-n studies exploring individual differences in the TE are confounded by the FTE, compromising conclusions in those papers about the efficacy of the TE across individuals.

情景记忆的回忆已被证明可以增强对检索信息的记忆（例如，相对于重新研究控制条件；测试效果或TE）和对不同的后续研究材料的记忆（前向测试效果或FTE）。因此，当 TE 实验中的训练涉及重新研究之前的测试或随机混合重新研究和测试的项目时，TE 可能会受到 FTE 混淆的影响。在两个提示回忆 TE 实验中，我们表明 (1) 在测试优先中存在有效的 FTE 混淆，但在混合训练设计中不存在，(2) 在三个频繁的重新研究和测试项目之间不存在其他明显的学习相关交互使用训练阶段任务排序，以及（3）测试增强学习的双记忆模型的预测——假设测试试验创建了一个与最初编码的学习记忆分开的记忆，从而产生了两条检索测试记忆的途径项目 – 在存在和不存在混杂 FTE 时均被保留。此外，我们的结果没有提供证据证明 FTE 的两种解释（主动干扰和编码假设重置）应用于提示回忆，但与两种替代解释（策略改变和增加努力假设）一致。通过分布分析，我们发现了一种新颖且有效的 FTE 个体差异效应，可以通过后者账户来适应。最后，我们表明至少三项探索 TE 个体差异的大型研究被 FTE 所混淆，从而损害了这些论文中关于 TE 在个体间的有效性的结论。