Limits...
Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus' Forgetting Curve.

Murre JM, Dros J - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: One subject spent 70 hours learning lists and relearning them after 20 min, 1 hour, 9 hours, 1 day, 2 days, or 31 days.The results are similar to Ebbinghaus' original data.We conclude that the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve has indeed been replicated and that it is not completely smooth but most probably shows a jump upwards starting at the 24 hour data point.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
We present a successful replication of Ebbinghaus' classic forgetting curve from 1880 based on the method of savings. One subject spent 70 hours learning lists and relearning them after 20 min, 1 hour, 9 hours, 1 day, 2 days, or 31 days. The results are similar to Ebbinghaus' original data. We analyze the effects of serial position on forgetting and investigate what mathematical equations present a good fit to the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve and its replications. We conclude that the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve has indeed been replicated and that it is not completely smooth but most probably shows a jump upwards starting at the 24 hour data point.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Learning time per list as a function of day of experiment with a fitted straight line.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4492928&req=5

pone.0120644.g005: Learning time per list as a function of day of experiment with a fitted straight line.

Mentions: We found a gradual increase in learning time throughout the course of the experiment as can be seen in Fig 5, where averaged learning time in s has been plotted for consecutive ten-day periods (‘bins’). In the course of the 75 days of the experimental phase there was an average increase in learning time of 2.67 s per day for a list (this linear regression explained 56.18% of the variance). If we correct for this steady increase, which mostly affects the 31 day interval, the corrected savings measure would be 0.137 for the 31 day interval instead of 0.0410. This, however, is still well below the values for the three others, which are in the 0.20 range. This steady increase in learning time may be due to pro-active interference or fatigue. Ebbinghaus [8] and Heller et al. [21] do not report or analyze this.


Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus' Forgetting Curve.

Murre JM, Dros J - PLoS ONE (2015)

Learning time per list as a function of day of experiment with a fitted straight line.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4492928&req=5

pone.0120644.g005: Learning time per list as a function of day of experiment with a fitted straight line.
Mentions: We found a gradual increase in learning time throughout the course of the experiment as can be seen in Fig 5, where averaged learning time in s has been plotted for consecutive ten-day periods (‘bins’). In the course of the 75 days of the experimental phase there was an average increase in learning time of 2.67 s per day for a list (this linear regression explained 56.18% of the variance). If we correct for this steady increase, which mostly affects the 31 day interval, the corrected savings measure would be 0.137 for the 31 day interval instead of 0.0410. This, however, is still well below the values for the three others, which are in the 0.20 range. This steady increase in learning time may be due to pro-active interference or fatigue. Ebbinghaus [8] and Heller et al. [21] do not report or analyze this.

Bottom Line: One subject spent 70 hours learning lists and relearning them after 20 min, 1 hour, 9 hours, 1 day, 2 days, or 31 days.The results are similar to Ebbinghaus' original data.We conclude that the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve has indeed been replicated and that it is not completely smooth but most probably shows a jump upwards starting at the 24 hour data point.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
We present a successful replication of Ebbinghaus' classic forgetting curve from 1880 based on the method of savings. One subject spent 70 hours learning lists and relearning them after 20 min, 1 hour, 9 hours, 1 day, 2 days, or 31 days. The results are similar to Ebbinghaus' original data. We analyze the effects of serial position on forgetting and investigate what mathematical equations present a good fit to the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve and its replications. We conclude that the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve has indeed been replicated and that it is not completely smooth but most probably shows a jump upwards starting at the 24 hour data point.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus