Correction: How Memory Retention Really Works
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 29 July 2026
The exact change
Article cited specific researchers, institutions, and statistics for memory and sleep research that, on independent verification, were either impossible (a medical school that doesn't exist), overstated relative to the real published effect size, or correctly-stated findings credited to the wrong researcher.
Removed the fabricated Wilfrid Laurier claim while preserving the real, general Ambrose spaced-repetition point; corrected the Born et al. effect size to match the real study; corrected the nap-restoration finding's attribution to Mednick, Nakayama and Stickgold (2003); corrected the blood-alcohol equivalence statistic's attribution to Williamson and Feyer.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
Real researchers and institutions were used as anchors for an impossible claim, an inflated statistic, and two citation swaps between real, closely-related studies - a more subtle variant of the fabrication pattern found across this batch of legacy articles.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.