In Experiment 1, reminder+interference produced better associative recognition than interference alone, contrary to reconsolidation-interference predictions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i1–i3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Post-hoc tests showed memory in the reminder+interference condition was significantly superior to memory in the interference-alone condition, the opposite of the reconsolidation-interference prediction. → Michael Batashvili 2022 q2 i1 A significant interference main effect reduced accuracy, but adding a reminder before interference did not weaken memory relative to interference-only. → Michael Batashvili 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Michael Batashvili 2022¶

Michael Batashvili, Rona Sheaffer, Maya Katz, Yoav Doron, Noam Kempler and Daniel A. Levy. (2022). Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design. npj Science of Learning 7:26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00143-w

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Post-hoc paired samples t-tests in Experiment 1 (40 participants) comparing the four reminder/interference conditions on accuracy. Table 1 prints Interference–Reminder+Interference: t(39) = −5.62, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.84, significant after Bonferroni correction.

"These indicated that memory for stimuli in the reminder + interference condition was significantly superior to memory in the interference-alone condition, the opposite of what would be expected if reminders engender reconsolidation interference."

Michael Batashvili 2022 (2)¶

Michael Batashvili, Rona Sheaffer, Maya Katz, Yoav Doron, Noam Kempler and Daniel A. Levy. (2022). Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design. npj Science of Learning 7:26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00143-w

q2 · i1 · causal · r2

The same 2×2 repeated-measures ANOVA in Experiment 1 showed a significant interference main effect lowering accuracy (Mean = 0.87 with interference vs 0.89 without; the article prints "η² = 0.02").

"There was also a signi ficant main effect of interference, F(1,39) = 6.81, p = 0.01, η² = 0.02, BF 10 < 0.001, showing that participants had poorer accuracy for pairs when an interference was employed"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 1, reminder+interference yielded greater recollection strength than interference alone on Remember/Know judgments — related
• In Experiment 1, reminders improved associative recognition accuracy for picture pairs (main effect of reminder) — related
• In Experiment 1, reminders speeded and interference slowed recognition response times, with reminder+interference faster than interference alone — related
• Across item recognition, associative recognition, and free recall paradigms, reminder-potentiated behavioural interference did not impair declarative memory within-subjects — a broader claim this one bears on
• In Experiment 3, the reminder × interference interaction on story recall was significant but no pairwise comparison survived Bonferroni correction — related