Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i3 Even when encoding time per character was equated across methods, the Presentation Method x Retention-Interval Duration interaction remained significant, with greater forgetting under simultaneous presentation. → Ricker Timothy J. 2014

Evidence¶

Ricker Timothy J. 2014¶

Ricker Timothy J., Cowan Nelson. (2014). Differences between Presentation Methods in Working Memory Procedures: A Matter of Working Memory Consolidation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034301

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Experiment 2 with 36 college students equated encoding time per character (250+83 ms) across methods by masking 83 ms after each sequential item. The significant interaction "F(2,68)=7.11, p<.005, ηp2=0.17" persisted; Cowan's k showed 0.67 items forgotten with simultaneous versus 0.22 with sequential presentation.

"there was also a significant interaction of Presentation Method with Retention-Interval Duration, F(2,68)=7.11, p<.005, ηp2=0.17 (means: sequential 1s=.79, 6s=.74, 12s=.74; simultaneous 1s=.81, 6s=.71, 12s=.68), indicating that the rate of time-based forgetting was different for sequential and simultaneous presentation methods"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Equating total consolidation time across presentation methods equalizes forgetting rates (Experiment 3) — related
Sequential presentation of memory items produces less time-based forgetting than simultaneous presentation (Experiment 1) — related
Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4) — reports the opposite
Time-based forgetting occurs across presentation methods, with rate determined by consolidation time — a broader claim this one bears on
Presentation format (sequential vs. simultaneous) does not reliably affect EOL accuracy — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`encoding-time-equation-does-not-equalize-forgetting`
`title`	`Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2)`
`description`	`Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2)`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2014`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-20`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-17`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `ricker-timothy-j-2014`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.