Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · 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 i? When the full array was presented three times with unmasked gaps, only the Retention-Interval Duration main effect was significant; no presentation-method effects approached significance. → Ricker Timothy J. 2014 q3 i? The rate of forgetting in Experiment 4 appeared to be roughly half that of Experiment 3, attributed to increased free consolidation time. → Ricker Timothy J. 2014 (2)

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 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 4 with 30 college students replicated Experiment 1 but presented the full array three times for 250 ms with 500-ms unmasked gaps, matching sequential timing. Only the Duration main effect "F(2,56)=8.81, p<.001, ηp2=0.24" was significant; all other effects were p>.1.

"This was the main effect of Retention-Interval Duration, F(2,56)=8.81, p<.001, ηp2=0.24 (means; 1s=.84, 6s=.81, 12s=.78), indicating that performance was better with shorter retention intervals"

Ricker Timothy J. 2014 (2)¶

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Visual inspection of Figure 8 means in Experiment 4 showed comparable forgetting across methods; Cowan's k estimates were 0.22 items forgotten with sequential and 0.31 with simultaneous presentation between 1 and 12 s.

"It is noteworthy that the rate of forgetting here appears to be roughly half the rate of forgetting as in Experiment 3"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Equating total consolidation time across presentation methods equalizes forgetting rates (Experiment 3) — related
Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2) — reports the opposite
Time-based forgetting occurs across presentation methods, with rate determined by consolidation time — a broader claim this one bears on
Sequential presentation of memory items produces less time-based forgetting than simultaneous presentation (Experiment 1) — related
Presentation format (sequential vs. simultaneous) does not reliably affect EOL accuracy — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`lengthened-consolidation-reduces-forgetting-exp4`
`title`	`Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4)`
`description`	`Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4)`
`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`	2 — `ricker-timothy-j-2014`, `ricker-timothy-j-2014-2`

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