Time-based forgetting occurs across presentation methods, with rate determined by consolidation time¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Significant forgetting over the retention interval was observed in all experiments regardless of presentation method, and longer consolidation times always produced slower forgetting. → Ricker Timothy J. 2014 q3 i? Across experiments, long consolidation times yielded mean items forgotten of .19-.31 versus .39-.67 with short consolidation times. → Ricker Timothy J. 2014 (2)

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 · i? · causal · r2

General Discussion statement summarizing the four experiments: duration-based forgetting appeared in every experiment under both presentation methods, and the authors argue it cannot be explained by retroactive interference accounts because no interfering events occurred during retention.

"Significant forgetting was always observed as a function of the retention-interval duration, regardless of presentation method."

Ricker Timothy J. 2014 (2)¶

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 · i? · causal · r2

Cross-experiment synthesis in the General Discussion comparing mean items forgotten between 1 and 12 s: conditions with long consolidation times (.19-.31) versus short consolidation times (Expt. 1 simultaneous =.39, Expt. 2 simultaneous =.67, Expt. 3 sequential=.41, simultaneous=.45).

"Long consolidation times always led to much slower rates of time-based forgetting (mean items forgotten between 1 and 12s; Expt. 1 sequential =.19, Expt. 2 sequential =.22, Expt. 4 sequential=.22, simultaneous=.31) than did short consolidation times"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Equating total consolidation time across presentation methods equalizes forgetting rates (Experiment 3) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Sequential presentation of memory items produces less time-based forgetting than simultaneous presentation (Experiment 1) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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
• Repeated retrieval practice alters the rate at which learned items are forgotten, according to learn-to-criterion studies and forgetting-curve analyses the chapter reviews — related
• The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments — a narrower finding that bears on this claim