In Experiment 1, reminders speeded and interference slowed recognition response times, with reminder+interference faster than interference alone¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i1–i3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Recognition response times were faster for reminded pairs than non-reminded pairs (main effect of reminder, η² = 0.32). → Michael Batashvili 2022 q2 i1 Recognition response times were slower for interfered pairs than non-interfered pairs (main effect of interference, η² = 0.01). → Michael Batashvili 2022 (2) q2 i2 Correct associative recognition was significantly faster in the reminder+interference condition than in the interference-alone condition, opposite to the reconsolidation-interference expectation. → Michael Batashvili 2022 (3)

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

A repeated-measures ANOVA on response times in Experiment 1 (40 participants) showed a significant reminder main effect with Mean = 3055 ms for reminders versus 3919 ms without; the article prints "η² = 0.32" for this effect.

"For RT, there was a signi ficant main effect of reminder, F(1,39) = 28.95, p < 0.001, η² = 0.32, BF 10 = 1.00, showing that participants had faster reaction time for pairs where a reminder was employed"

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 response-time ANOVA in Experiment 1 (40 participants) showed a significant interference main effect, with Mean = 3572 ms under interference versus 3402 ms without; the article prints "η² = 0.01".

"There was also a signi ficant main effect of interference, F(1,39) = 4.455, p = 0.04, η² = 0.01, BF 10 < 0.001, showing that participants had a slower reaction time for pairs when an interference was employed"

Michael Batashvili 2022 (3)¶

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Post-hoc paired samples t-tests on response times (Table 2) in Experiment 1 (40 participants): Interference–Reminder+Interference t(39) = 4.75, p < 0.001, d = 0.55, significant after Bonferroni correction.

"the comparisons indicated that correct associative recognition of stimuli in the reminder + interference condition was signi ficantly faster than in the interference-alone condition, the opposite of what would be expected if reminders engender reconsolidation interference."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 1, reminders improved associative recognition accuracy for picture pairs (main effect of reminder) — related
• In Experiment 1, reminder+interference produced better associative recognition than interference alone, contrary to reconsolidation-interference predictions — related
• In Experiment 1, reminder+interference yielded greater recollection strength than interference alone on Remember/Know judgments — 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