ArticleNPJ science of learning2022
Brief memory reactivations induce learning in the numeric domain.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Learning of arithmetic facts such as the multiplication table requires time-consuming, repeated practice. In light of evidence indicating that reactivation of encoded memories can modulate learning and memory processes at the synaptic, system and behavioral levels, we asked whether brief memory reactivations can induce human learning in the numeric domain. Adult participants performed a number-fact retrieval task in which they learned arbitrary numeric facts. Following encoding and a baseline test, 3 passive, brief reactivation sessions of only 40 s each were conducted on separate days. Learning was evaluated in a retest session. Results showed reactivations induced learning, with improved performance at retest relative to baseline test. Furthermore, performance was superior compared to a control group performing test-retest sessions without reactivations, who showed significant memory deterioration. A standard practice group completed active-retrieval sessions on 3 separate days, and showed significant learning gains. Interestingly, while these gains were higher than those of the reactivations group, subjects showing reactivation-induced learning were characterized by superior efficiency relative to standard practice subjects, with higher rate of improvement per practice time. A follow-up long-term retention experiment showed that 30 days following initial practice, weekly brief reactivations reduced forgetting, with participants performing superior to controls undergoing the same initial practice without reactivations. Overall, the results demonstrate that brief passive reactivations induce efficient learning and reduce forgetting within a numerical context. Time-efficient practice in the numeric domain carries implications for enhancement of learning strategies in daily-life settings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.