Reactivations do not increase false memories: no reactivation effect on falsely recalled images or details¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither reactivation type increased false recalled images or false details; the reactivation main effect and interaction were non-significant on both error measures. → 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

For false images, only the interval main effect was significant, F(2, 155) = 13.57, p < 0.001; the 1-h condition reported fewer false images than the 9-day and 28-day conditions. For false details, the ANOVA "failed to reveal any signi ficant effects".

"Neither the main effect of reactiva- tion, F (3, 155) = 0.40, p = 0.76, nor the interaction, F (6, 155) = 0.77, p = 0.59, approached signi ficance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only descriptive reactivation improves memory precision (correct details per recalled image) — related
• Descriptive reactivations increase correct details recalled; component reactivations increase details only versus distractor — related
• 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 — 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
• Component (category-cueing) reactivations mitigate forgetting relative to distractor controls but do not beat no-reactivation controls on image recall — related