Component (category-cueing) reactivations mitigate forgetting relative to distractor controls but do not beat no-reactivation controls on image recall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Component reactivations produced significantly more recalled images than distractor reactivations, but did not significantly outperform the no-reactivation Control group. → MacLeod 2018

Evidence¶

MacLeod 2018¶

MacLeod, S., Reynolds, M. G. & Lehmann, H. (2018). The mitigating effect of repeated memory reactivations on forgetting. npj Science of Learning 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0025-x

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Analysis of the image-recall measure in the reactivation experiment showed component cueing outperformed the distractor control (p < 0.01) while the difference from the no-reactivation Control was "not ... significantly better" (p = 0.25).

"The component reactivations also mitigated forgetting as the participants in this group remembered signi ficantly more images than the partici- pants in the Distractor group ( p < 0.01). However, the Component group did not perform signi ficantly better than the no reactivation Control group ( p = 0.25)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Descriptive reactivations significantly improve free recall of images compared with distractor and no-reactivation controls — related
• At the 28-day retention interval, both descriptive and component reactivations outperform both controls, with relative gains of 58.8–67.2% for images and over 100% for details — reports the opposite
• Descriptive reactivations increase correct details recalled; component reactivations increase details only versus distractor — related
• Reactivations do not increase false memories: no reactivation effect on falsely recalled images or details — related
• Only descriptive reactivation improves memory precision (correct details per recalled image) — related