At the 28-day retention interval, both descriptive and component reactivations outperform both controls, with relative gains of 58.8–67.2% for images and over 100% for details¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? In the 28-day condition, Descriptive and Component groups recalled significantly more images and details than both the Distractor and Control groups, and relative enhancements exceeded 100% for details. → MacLeod 2018
Evidence¶
MacLeod 2018¶
MacLeod, S., Reynolds, M. G. & Lehmann, H. (2018). The mitigating effect of repeated memory reactivations on forgetting. npj Science of Learning 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0025-x
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Relative-score analysis versus the no-reactivation Control average in the 28-day condition showed these percentage gains, all significantly above chance (ps < 0.05) except the Component group on details per image (p > 0.05).
"image recall was enhanced by 58.8% (SEM = 18.4) for the Descriptive group and 67.2% (SEM = 23.9) for the Component group. Similarly, for both groups the number of details recalled increased by 134.5% (SEM = 27.34) and 113.1% (SEM = 43.4), respectively."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Component (category-cueing) reactivations mitigate forgetting relative to distractor controls but do not beat no-reactivation controls on image recall — reports the opposite
- Only descriptive reactivation improves memory precision (correct details per recalled image) — related
- Descriptive reactivations significantly improve free recall of images compared with distractor and no-reactivation controls — related
- Retention declines with interval (time-dependent forgetting) across images, details, and details-per-image measures — related
- Descriptive reactivations increase correct details recalled; component reactivations increase details only versus distractor — reports the opposite
- Reactivations do not increase false memories: no reactivation effect on falsely recalled images or details — related
- Weekly brief reactivations during a 30-day retention interval reduce forgetting of numeric facts relative to controls — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
reactivation-benefits-largest-at-28-days |
title |
At the 28-day retention interval, both descriptive and component reactivations outperform both controls, with relative gains of 58.8–67.2% for images and over 100% for details |
description |
At the 28-day retention interval, both descriptive and component reactivations outperform both controls, with relative gains of 58.8–67.2% for images and over 100% for details |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — macleod-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.