What's known, and what's oursWhat's known,and what's ours.
Known
01
Recalling beats rereading.
Trying to recall an answer strengthens memory more than reading it again. In the classic
experiments, students who were tested remembered more a week later than students who studied
the material again.12
Every review is a test: the answer stays hidden until you ask for it. A new card is shown with
its answer once, then tested.
02
Spacing beats cramming.
The same study, spread over days, is remembered longer than in one sitting. A synthesis of
over three hundred experiments on recalling words and facts found spaced study ahead of
massed study, and the best gap growing with how long you need to
remember.3
03
Review as recall fades.
FSRS, an open scheduler, models each card's memory with three numbers: how hard it is, how
stable it is, and how likely you are to recall it today. It sets the next review for when that
likelihood falls to the retention you choose, 90 % by
default.45
The September 27, 2026 benchmark snapshot covers some 727 million reviews from 10,000 Anki
users,6
and Anki has offered it since version 23.10. RectoVerso runs FSRS-6 on your iPhone, checked against the
reference implementation on 1,746 reviews, and against Anki 26.9.3 across five review histories, including lapses and same-day reviews. It refits its memory parameters to your own reviews once there are enough. This checks the scheduler, not the validity of using reveal depth to choose a rating.
Fig. 1 The chance of recalling a card between reviews, as FSRS-6 models
it. This example reviews at a predicted 90 % recall (the red line) and shows memory becoming more stable. Actual intervals depend on review history; they are rounded and varied slightly to spread the workload. Dotted: without that review. Illustrative stabilities of 2.3, 7.5, 21 and 55 days.
Ours
04
Say whether you know it. Skip the difficulty rating.
Many apps ask you to choose Again, Hard, Good or Easy. In RectoVerso, you still say whether you knew the card, but you do not rate the difficulty. You
open the phone, or slide the answer up, only as far as you need, then tap I know it, or I know the rest once part of it shows. The whole answer then shows, so you can check: Next card lets your claim stand, I was wrong takes it back. If you don't know it, tap I don't know. Once all of it shows, the buttons say I didn't know and I knew it. The
largest share of the answer you revealed before answering is the effort, and it's recorded with the answer.
05
From information to ratings.
FSRS still takes one of its four ratings, and the effort picks it. A Wrong (I don't know, I didn't know or I was wrong) is Again, at any
depth. I know it with nothing revealed is Easy, I know the rest part-way is Good, and a Right after 60 % or
more of the answer is Hard, I knew it with all of it included. These are bands: revealing more within a band keeps the same rating. New and relearning cards use Good for any nonzero reveal, so they can finish their learning steps.
Fig. 2 The rating a Right gets from the share of the answer revealed
first. In la bibliothèque, 60 % falls between the eighth letter and the ninth. New and relearning cards get Good instead of Hard. At high retention targets, different ratings can even round to the same due day.
06
Not proven yet.
Letter cues are old: memory researchers have taught words by taking letters away as they're
learned.7
In a word-recall experiment, adding letter cues helped compared with studying alone when the full answer was then shown, though less than diminishing cues.8
That result does not validate reveal-based ratings for math, images or other card types. Choosing a rating from how much of the answer you revealed is our design, and we haven't tested it in a study. Every review
keeps its effort, how the answer was revealed and how long it took; FSRS's parameters are
refitted to your reviews and kept only when they predict your answers better. The reveal-to-rating mapping itself is fixed, not personalized by that fitting. The records could inform a future revision; we do not yet know whether this method predicts recall better than self-rated difficulty.
Reading the numbers
What the numbers can tell you.
Your retention score counts Right answers on reviews at least a day apart, once a card is past its first steps, even when you revealed the whole answer. It is not a measure of unaided recall alone. Cards marked Fragile revealed at least 60% of their answer on three of their last four reviews; Wrong answers count too.
The scheduler estimates recall; it cannot promise you will remember a card. Its default target is 90%, and scheduling variation spreads reviews across nearby days. The app records the information actually shown, including discrete steps such as letters or math terms.
Sources
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.doi:10.1126/science.1152408
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Ye, J., Su, J., & Cao, Y. (2022). A stochastic shortest path algorithm for optimizing spaced repetition scheduling. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.doi:10.1145/3534678.3539081
Su, J., Ye, J., Nie, L., Cao, Y., & Chen, Y. (2023). Optimizing spaced repetition schedule by capturing the dynamics of memory. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(10), 10085–10097.doi:10.1109/TKDE.2023.3251721
Glisky, E. L., Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (1986). Learning and retention of computer-related vocabulary in memory-impaired patients: Method of vanishing cues. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8(3), 292–312.doi:10.1080/01688638608401320
Finley, J. R., Benjamin, A. S., Hays, M. J., Bjork, R. A., & Kornell, N. (2011). Benefits of accumulating versus diminishing cues in recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 289–298.doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.006