Sequential presentation of memory items produces less time-based forgetting than simultaneous presentation (Experiment 1)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The rate of time-based forgetting was greater with simultaneous than sequential presentation, shown by a significant Presentation Method x Retention-Interval Duration interaction. → Ricker Timothy J. 2014

Evidence¶

Ricker Timothy J. 2014¶

Ricker Timothy J., Cowan Nelson. (2014). Differences between Presentation Methods in Working Memory Procedures: A Matter of Working Memory Consolidation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034301

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Mixed-factors ANOVA of proportion correct in Experiment 1 with 32 college students remembering 3 unfamiliar characters over 1, 6, or 12 s. The interaction "F(2,60)=4.52, p<.05, ηp2=0.13" showed forgetting was more severe in the simultaneous condition; Cowan's k estimates showed 0.39 items forgotten with simultaneous versus 0.19 with sequential presentation.

"Most importantly, there was also a significant interaction of Presentation Method with Retention-Interval Duration, F(2,60)=4.52, p<.05, ηp2=0.13 (means: sequential 1s=.86, 6s=.82, 12s=.81; simultaneous 1s=.85, 6s=.73, 12s=.76)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Equating total consolidation time across presentation methods equalizes forgetting rates (Experiment 3) — related
• Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2) — related
• Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4) — related
• Time-based forgetting occurs across presentation methods, with rate determined by consolidation time — a broader claim this one bears on
• The retrieval (TTST) advantage appeared at both short (5 min) and long (24 h) retention delays, with no reliable evidence that it differed between them — related
• Equation memory shows a strong validity effect (valid > invalid recall) that interacts with equation length — related
• In Experiment 3, individual learners showed greater forgetting over 24 hours than paired learners — related
• The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments — related