Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 17;14(1):e0210876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210876

Fig 4. The effect of memory retrieval on performance rate.

Fig 4

(A) Time to complete the last 30 key-presses during the last training block, the retrieval block and the first test block (End-T, Retrieval and Test respectively) is plotted for each group (NoReInt, ReInt and Re8hInt with blue, magenta and yellow markers respectively) and each sequence (T-Seq, filled markers upper plot; Int-Seq, empty markers lower plot). (B) Gains in performance, normalized to the last training block, that developed during the post-training interval for each sequence (i.e., between the end of training on Day 1 (T-Seq) or on Day 2 (Int-Seq) and the corresponding test session on Day 3; Post-T Gains) averaged across participants of each group (upper plot). Positive values correspond to faster performance by Day 3 than by the end of training. Individual Post-T Gains for the T-Seq (x axis) plotted against Post-T Gains for the Int-Seq (y axis) (lower plots). Bars–standard error of the mean (s.e.m.). *–significant results at .05 level, #–significant results at .01 level, n.s.–no significant differences. Note that in the ReInt group, regression analysis did not result in significant correlation even after excluding two participants with extremely negative values.