How quickly they forget: The relationship between forgetting and working memory performance.

Abstract

This study examined the contribution of individual differences in rate of forgetting to variation in working memory performance in children. 112 children (mean age 9 years 4 months) completed two tasks designed to measure forgetting, as well as measures of working memory, processing efficiency, and short-term storage ability.Individual differences in forgetting rate accounted for unique variance in working memory performance over and above variance explained by measures of processing efficiency and storage ability. In addition, the nature of the variation in forgetting was more consistent with a non-executive forgetting parameter than an executive ability associated with resistance to interference. These findings indicate that individual differences in the rate at which information is lost from memory is an important constraint on children's working memory performance which has implications for current models of working memory that do not incorporate such a factor.

Charting the trajectory of forgetting: Insights from a working memory period paradigm

“…Complementing this, working memory period shows some statistical overlap with its better-known span paradigm. This individual-difference perspective supports the idea that the endurance of working memory—or put another way, the rate of forgetting or item loss (Bayliss & Jarrold, 2015)—is a relevant construct that contributes to individual differences and is to some extent distinguishable from capacity measures.…”

“…Moreover, other work converges on the more specific idea that forgetting rate is a separable working memory parameter. In particular, Bayliss and Jarrold (2015) report that one component of working memory capacity variance can be traced to the rate of forgetting in the Peterson and Peterson task (see also the discussion in Jarrold, 2017). Consequently, an endurance-based dimension of working memory, as advocated above, aligns with a range of empirical work.…”

Teaching Young FL Learners New Vocabulary: A Comparison between the Efficiency of Keyword Method and Total Physical Response

“…The results indicating no significant effect for time suggest that the forgetting rate is highest within 24 hours after the items are presented, supporting experiential evidence that indicate a high forgetting rate in young learners soon after stimulation (e.g., Bayliss, Jarrold, & Greene, 2015;Brainerd & Reyna, 1995). These findings suggest that FL instructors teaching elementary school children should be aware of the limitations of their memory skills and of the importance of mnemonics and their role in scaffolding the learning process.…”

Teaching New Vocabulary to Iranian Young FL Learners: Using Two Methods Total Physical Response and Keyword Method

“…These findings add to the existing literature and support the use of the KWM in the classroom, especially when it is being used to teach young children and when visual support is being provided. The results indicating no significant effect for time suggest that the forgetting rate is highest within 24 hours after the items are presented, supporting experiential evidence that indicate a high forgetting rate in young learners soon after stimulation (e.g., Bayliss, Jarrold, & Greene, 2015;Brainerd & Reyna, 1995). These findings suggest that FL instructors teaching elementary school children should be aware of the limitations of their memory skills and of the importance of mnemonics and their role in scaffolding the learning process.…”