Across the four existing experiments on WMC moderation of disfluency, results are inconsistent: one finds the effect restricted to high-span, one to low-span, and two find null moderation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The literature contains one experiment showing the disfluency effect restricted to high-span subjects (Lehmann et al., 2016), one showing it restricted to low-span subjects (Miyakawa & Hattori, 2017), and two showing null moderation (Strukelj et al., 2016; the present study). → Sophia C. Weissgerber 2024

Evidence¶

Sophia C. Weissgerber 2024¶

Sophia C. Weissgerber, Denia Indah Permatasari Terhorst, Ralf Rummer. (2024). Is the perceptual disfluency effect moderated by working memory capacity? Direct replication of Lehmann et al. (2016). Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09366-7

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Narrative synthesis in the Discussion of the four experiments testing WMC moderation of the disfluency effect. "Thus, there is one experiment demonstrating that the disfluency effect is restricted to high-span subjects (Lehmann et al., 2016), one experiment demonstrating that it is restricted to low-span subjects (Miyakawa & Hattori, 2017), and two experiments demonstrating a null effect (Strukelj et al., 2016; the present study)." The authors attribute the discrepancies to power, analytical choices, and methodological deviations in operationalizations of WMC, disfluency, and outcome measures, with small samples complicating comparability.

"Thus, there is one experiment demonstrating that the disfluency effect is restricted to high-span subjects (Lehmann et al., 2016), one experiment demonstrating that it is restricted to low-span subjects (Miyakawa & Hattori, 2017), and two experiments demonstrating a null effect (Strukelj et al., 2016; the present study)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The null effect of the disfluency × WMC interaction on transfer replicated the primary study's null finding, with both studies showing negative coefficients
• In a pre-registered direct replication (N = 96), the disfluency × WMC interaction did not significantly predict retention, failing to replicate Lehmann et al. (2016) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Working memory capacity moderated disfluency effects in one study but not another — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Working memory capacity predicts comprehension performance only in the disfluency condition, with higher WMC yielding better comprehension — related
• The learning benefits of perceptual disfluency reported by Diemand-Yauman et al. (2011) do not replicate in any general way — related
• The primary study (Lehmann et al., 2016) had only about 45% power to detect its observed interaction effect; roughly 150 participants would be needed for 80% power — related