In Experiment 2, reminders improved story recall, but interference had no significant effect on recall or recognition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (4 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i0–i2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Story recall was greater for reminded stories than non-reminded stories (η² = 0.08). → Michael Batashvili 2022 q2 i0 Interference had no significant main effect on story recall accuracy (η² = 0.001). → Michael Batashvili 2022 (2) q2 i0 There was no significant reminder × interference interaction on story recall accuracy (η² = 0.006). → Michael Batashvili 2022 (3) q2 i? Story recognition showed no significant effects of reminder, interference, or their interaction. → Michael Batashvili 2022 (4)

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 · i2 · causal · r2

A 2×2 repeated-measures ANOVA on recall of narrative stories in Experiment 2 (52 participants, online via Zoom over three days). Reminder Mean = 5.40 versus 3.75 without; the article prints "η² = 0.08".

"For recall, there was a signi ficant main effect of reminder, F(1,51) = 15.89, p < 0.001, η² = 0.08, BF 10 = 1.00, showing that participants had greater recall 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 · i0 · causal · r2

The same Experiment 2 recall ANOVA showed no significant interference main effect; the article prints "η² = 0.001". The authors suggest the interference story may not have seemed similar enough to the original.

"There was no signi ficant main effect of interference, F(1,51) = 0.20, p = 0.66, η² = 0.001, BF10 = 0.003."

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 · i0 · causal · r2

The same Experiment 2 recall ANOVA showed no significant reminder × interference interaction; the article prints "η² = 0.006". Equivalence was not tested beyond these non-significant tests.

"There was also no signi ficant interaction found for reminder and interference conditions on recall accuracy, F(1,51) = 0.81, p = 0.37, η² = 0.006, BF10 = 0.17."

Michael Batashvili 2022 (4)¶

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 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 yes/no recognition accuracy ANOVA (52 participants): no significant reminder, interference, or interaction effects. Equivalence was not tested; the article reports only null test results.

"there was no signi ficant main effect of reminder, F(1,51) = 0.67, p = 0.42, η² = 0.004, BF10 = 0.20, nor of interference, F(1,51) = 1.66, p = 0.20, η² = 0.01, BF10 = 0.33, and no significant interaction found for reminder and interference condi- tions on recognition accuracy"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 3, the reminder × interference interaction on story recall was significant but no pairwise comparison survived Bonferroni correction — 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