Brief reactivations significantly reduce recall reaction times, while controls show no RT change¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The Reactivations group had a significant reduction in reaction times from test to retest; the Control group did not. → Gilad Schrift 2022

Evidence¶

Gilad Schrift 2022¶

Gilad Schrift, Dror Dotan and Nitzan Censor. (2022). Brief memory reactivations induce learning in the numeric domain. npj Science of Learning 7:18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00136-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 repeated-measures ANOVA on RTs showed a significant Session x Group interaction (F 2,86 = 7.688, P = 0.0009); paired t-tests gave the Reactivations group a "mean test-retest RT change = −487ms ± 174 ms S.E." versus no significant Control change. No effect size is printed.

"Paired-samples t-tests tests revealed that the Reactivations group had a significant reduction in reaction times (mean test-retest RT change = −487ms ± 174 ms S.E., t(27) = −2.80, P = 0.009), while the Control group did not (mean change = 0.124 ms ±177 ms S.E, t(30) = 0.70, P = 0.49)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Processing Speed — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Without reactivations, numeric fact memory deteriorates significantly between test and retest — related
• Brief passive reactivations induce significant learning gains in numeric fact recall at retest 8 days after encoding — related
• Weekly brief reactivations during a 30-day retention interval reduce forgetting of numeric facts relative to controls — related