Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Neural and computational evidence for a predictive learning account of the testing effect
Haopeng CheniD, Pieter VerbekeiD, Stefania MattioniiD, Cristian Buc CalderoniD, Tom VergutsiD
Abstract
Testing enhances memory more than studying. Although numerous studies have demonstrated the robustness of this classic effect, its neural and computational origin remains debated. Predictive learning is a potential mechanism behind this phenomenon: Because predictions and prediction errors (mismatch between predictions and feedback) are more likely to be generated in testing (relative to in studying), testing can benefit more from predictive learning. We shed light on the testing effect from a multi-level analysis perspective via a combination of cognitive neuroscience experiments (fMRI) and computational modeling. Behaviorally and computationally, only a model incorporating predictive learning can account for the full breadth of behavioral patterns and the robust testing effect. At the neural level, testing and prediction error both activate the canonical reward-related brain areas in the ventral striatum, insula, and midbrain. Crucially, back sorting analysis revealed that activation in the ventral striatum, insula, and midbrain can enhance declarative memory. These results provide strong and converging evidence for a predictive learning account of the testing effect. Significance StatementAn exam is not a neutral measurement of memory. The testing effect entails that a test (e.g., an exam), is more effective than study for learning and memory. The same effect can be harnessed also before events of significance take place, rendering it an important aspect of an active learning strategy. Nevertheless, its origin remains unknown. We propose a novel predictive learning account, which posits that testing (vs studying) facilitates predictions about study material and promotes learning from prediction errors. Computationally, the testing effect was explained through a predictive-learning-based neural network. Neurally, testing and prediction error activate common neural areas, which in turn enhance declarative memory. This account may extend beyond testing to support active learning.
- Citations
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.70
- Field percentile
- top 16%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Neural differentiation of incorrectly predicted memories
Ghootae Kim, Kenneth A. Norman, Nicholas B. Turk‐Browne·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 23, 2017
- Temporal dynamics of competition between statistical learning and episodic memory in intracranial recordings of human visual cortex
Brynn E. Sherman, Kathryn Nicole Graves, … Nicholas B. Turk‐Browne·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Nov 7, 2022
- How predictability and individual alpha frequency shape memory: insights from an event-related potential investigation
Sophie Jano, Alex Chatburn, … Ina Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky·Neurobiology of Learning and MemoryPeer-reviewed·Nov 19, 2024
- Learning from imagined experiences via an endogenous prediction error
Aroma Dabas, Rasmus Bruckner, … Roland Georg Benoit·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Dec 10, 2025
- A recurrent neuronal model for the effect of predictions on sensory processes
Buse Merve Ürgen, Hilal I. Basturk, Huseyin Boyaci·bioRxiv·Feb 5, 2021
- Post-learning replay of hippocampal-striatal activity is biased by reward-prediction signals
Emma L. Roscow, Timothy Howe, … Matthew W. Jones·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Nov 24, 2025