Reward positivity showed no forgetting-curve lapse after ~30 days despite a lapse in behavioral accuracy, indicating retained ability to internally evaluate responses¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Reward positivity amplitude at the start of the second module did not differ from the end of the first module, even though behavioral accuracy lapsed. → Anderson 2019

Evidence¶

Anderson 2019¶

Anderson, S. J., Jamniczky, H. A., Krigolson, O. E., Coderre, S. P. & Hecker, K. G. (2019). Quantifying two-dimensional and three-dimensional stereoscopic learning in anatomy using electroencephalography. npj Science of Learning 4:10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0050-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Comparison of reward positivity amplitude between the last block of module 1 and first block of module 2 (~30-day retention interval) found no difference (p > 0.05), while accuracy showed a significant lapse (p < 0.05). The article reports no effect size for this contrast.

"We demonstrated that there was no lapse in reward positivity amplitude at the beginning of the second module compared to the end of the first module despite a lapse in behavioral accuracy performance. Unlike performance accuracy, the reward positivity learning curve did not exhibit a “forgetting curve ”."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Behavioral accuracy improved strongly over blocks but did not significantly differ among the 2D, 3D, and 2D/3D learning groups despite neural differences — related
• Interleaved 2D/3D learning produced decreased reward positivity amplitude compared to 2D-only and 3D-only groups during the second (retention/transfer) module — related