Retention did not differ between contents tested 3 versus 4 days after learning¶

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? There was no significant performance difference between contents presented 3 or 4 days before the test in any condition; equivalence was not tested. → Thiago Cabral 2018

Evidence¶

Thiago Cabral 2018¶

Thiago Cabral, Natália B. Mota, Lucia Fraga, Mauro Copelli, Mark A. McDaniel and Sidarta Ribeiro. (2018). Post-class naps boost declarative learning in a naturalistic school setting. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0031-z

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Secondary analysis of the weekly retention tests by retention interval (3 vs 4 days), reported as a supplementary null across all conditions. No effect size printed, so impact is null.

"There was no signi ficant performance difference when contents where presented 3 or 4 days before the test, neither for contents A/C followed by nap, nor for contents A/C followed by another class, nor for content B followed by the break (Supplementary Table S1)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Long post-class naps (>30 min) improve retention versus waking with specific interference (another lecture in the same discipline) — related
• No significant differences between conditions on the retention test, and scores of the Visual and Timeline conditions decreased significantly from post-test to retention — related
• A within-list lag effect persisted at all retention intervals (up to 7 days) when the orienting task allowed interitem associations, contrary to what a context-only retrieval account predicts for that condition — related