Automatic retrieval in directed forgetting

In two experiments, we investigated the role of automatic retrieval in directed forgetting, using a stem completion test. In each experiment, we compared the performance of an implicit group, a process dissociation procedure (PDP) group, and a group given a speeded response task. The response times of the speeded response group on the stem completion task replicated earlier data in suggesting that this group adopted a purely automatic retrieval strategy. Experiment 1 revealed a directed-forgetting effect on automatic retrieval with the item method, but Experiment 2 revealed no directed-forgetting effect on automatic retrieval with the list method, consistent with the lack of implicit effects with the list method throughout the literature. Both experiments showed lower automatic estimates for the PDP group than for the implicit and speeded response groups, which did not differ. The data are consistent with either a selective rehearsal or an inhibition account of directed forgetting with the list method. The comparison of methods for assessing automatic retrieval is consistent with earlier evidence suggesting that subjects may adopt a generate/recognize strategy when given direct retrieval instructions.     

The crucial role of postcue encoding in directed forgetting and context-dependent forgetting

People can intentionally forget previously studied material if, after study, a forget cue is provided and new material is learned. It has recently been suggested that such list-method directed forgetting arises because the forget cue induces a change in internal context and causes context-dependent forgetting of the studied material (L. Sahakyan & C. M. Kelley, 2002). The authors compared directed forgetting and context-dependent forgetting by examining whether, like a forget cue, a change in internal context needs subsequent learning of new material to be effective. Participants studied an item list and, after study, received a remember cue or a forget cue or their internal context was changed through an imagination task. In each condition, half the participants learned a second list, and the other half fulfilled an unrelated distractor task. Both the forget cue and the change in internal context induced forgetting of the first list only when learning of the second list was interpolated. These results suggest that postcue encoding of new material is crucial for both directed forgetting and (some forms of) context-dependent forgetting.     

The role of forget-cue salience in list-method directed forgetting

Research suggests that manipulating the wording of the forget cue in list-method directed forgetting affects the magnitude of directed forgetting both in younger children (Aslan, Staudigl, Samenieh, & Bauml, in press) and in older adults (Sahakyan, Delaney, & Goodmon, 2008). This occurs when the forget cue overemphasises the importance of forgetting in the current context. The present experiment investigated whether de-emphasising forgetting affected the magnitude of list-method directed forgetting in college adults. Some participants received overt forget cues that explicitly instructed them to forget earlier studied items, whereas others received covert forget cues that implied forgetting by emphasising selective remembering (e.g., “you will only need to remember some of the items”). Results indicated equivalent directed forgetting for both types of cues. However, regardless of the type of cue received, participants who reported using specific forgetting strategies in response to the forget cue showed directed forgetting, whereas those that reported doing nothing did not show any effects. The results underscore that successful directed forgetting requires engagement of controlled processes.     

The role of forget-cue salience in list-method directed forgetting

Research suggests that manipulating the wording of the forget cue in list-method directed forgetting affects the magnitude of directed forgetting both in younger children (Aslan, Staudigl, Samenieh, & Bauml, in press) and in older adults (Sahakyan, Delaney, & Goodmon, 2008). This occurs when the forget cue overemphasises the importance of forgetting in the current context. The present experiment investigated whether de-emphasising forgetting affected the magnitude of list-method directed forgetting in college adults. Some participants received overt forget cues that explicitly instructed them to forget earlier studied items, whereas others received covert forget cues that implied forgetting by emphasising selective remembering (e.g., "you will only need to remember some of the items"). Results indicated equivalent directed forgetting for both types of cues. However, regardless of the type of cue received, participants who reported using specific forgetting strategies in response to the forget cue showed directed forgetting, whereas those that reported doing nothing did not show any effects. The results underscore that successful directed forgetting requires engagement of controlled processes.     

Repetition effects in directed forgetting: evidence for retrieval inhibition

Four experiments were conducted in support of a role for memory retrieval inhibition in directed forgetting. In each experiment, subjects were presented a list of words, some of which they were instructed to remember and some of which they were instructed to forget. After a recall test for all the words, the list was repeated. This time, however, all the words were presented with instructions that they be remembered. The improvement in recall from Trial 1 to Trial 2 was greater for the “forget” (F) words than for the “remember” (R) words. This difference was not due to a memorization-difficulty, item-selection effect (Experiment 2), a differential priority for rehearsal or output position given to the F items on Trial 2 (Experiment 3), or the greater number of F items left to be learned after Trial 1 (Experiment 4). Thus, the differential improvement from List 1 to List 2 for the F items was interpreted as a release of retrieval inhibition owing to the change in cue from forget to remember.     

Disrupted retrieval in directed forgetting: a link with posthypnotic amnesia

Certain reliable findings from research on directed forgetting seem difficult to accommodate in terms of the theoretical processes, such as selective rehearsal or storage differentiation, that have been put forward to account for directed-forgetting phenomena. Some kind of "missing mechanism" appears to be involved. In order to circumvent the methodological constraints that have limited the conclusions investigators could draw from past experiments, a new paradigm is introduced herein that includes a mixture of intentional and incidental learning. With this paradigm, a midlist instruction to forget the first half of a list was found to reduce later recall of the items learned incidentally as well as those learned intentionally. This result suggests that a cue to forget can lead to a disruption of retrieval processes as well as to the alteration of encoding processes postulated in prior theories. The results also provide a link between intentional forgetting and the literature on posthypnotic amnesia, in which disrupted retrieval has been implicated. With each of these procedures, the information that can be remembered is typically recalled out of order and often with limited recollection for when the information had been presented. It therefore was concluded here that retrieval inhibition plays a significant role in nonhypnotic as well as in hypnotic instances of directed forgetting. The usefulness of retrieval inhibition as a mechanism for memory updating was also discussed.     

Retrieval practice can eliminate list method directed forgetting

It has recently been shown that retrieval practice can reduce memories’ susceptibility to interference, like retroactive and proactive interference. In this study, we therefore examined whether retrieval practice can also reduce list method directed forgetting, a form of intentional forgetting that presupposes interference. In each of two experiments, subjects successively studied two lists of items. After studying each single list, subjects restudied the list items to enhance learning, or they were asked to recall the items. Following restudy or retrieval practice of list 1 items, subjects were cued to either forget the list or remember it for an upcoming final test. Experiment 1 employed a free-recall and Experiment 1 a cued-recall procedure on the final memory test. In both experiments, directed forgetting was present in the restudy condition but was absent in the retrieval-practice condition, indicating that retrieval practice can reduce or even eliminate this form of forgetting. The results are consistent with the view that retrieval practice enhances list segregation processes. Such processes may reduce interference between lists and thus reduce directed forgetting.     

List-method directed forgetting: The forget cue improves both encoding and retrieval of postcue information

In list-method directed forgetting, people are cued to forget a previously studied item list and to learn a new list instead. Such cuing typically leads to forgetting of the first list and to memory enhancement of the second, referred to as list 1 forgetting and list 2 enhancement. In the present study, two experiments are reported that examined influences of items' serial learning position in a list and the two lists' output order on list-method directed forgetting. The results show that list output order influences list 2 enhancement but not list 1 forgetting. The enhancement was higher when list 2 was recalled first than when list 1 was recalled first and, in both cases, was higher for early list 2 items than for middle and late list 2 items. In contrast, the forgetting was equally present for all list 1 items and did not depend on the two lists' output order. The findings suggest that two separate factors can contribute to list 2 enhancement: one (encoding) factor that is restricted to early list 2 items and does not depend on list output order, and another (retrieval) factor that pertains to all list 2 items and varies with the two lists' output order. A new two-mechanism account of directed forgetting is suggested that reconciles previous (encoding or retrieval) views on list 2 enhancement.     

定向遗忘的编码加工机制

有目的的遗忘(定向遗忘)需要耗费认知努力吗?有研究发现, 定向遗忘可能是被动衰减的结果, 即F项目(需要遗忘的项目)未获得有效复述是选择性复述了R项目(需要记住的项目)造成的, 这一加工过程不需要认知努力; 但也有研究表明, 定向遗忘过程可能是遗忘线索诱发的对记忆加工的主动抑制, 需要耗费认知努力, 脑认知研究中发现的前额叶ERPs成分为这一机制提供了证据。还有一种观点认为, 定向遗忘编码过程可能同时包含主动抑制与被动衰减, 但是尚不清楚两种加工机制相互作用的方式。为进一步澄清定向遗忘编码阶段的认知机制, 未来研究需要将非认知因素纳入考察, 并关注不同人群的定向遗忘特征, 在此基础上尝试解决理论争议。     

Providing corrective feedback during retrieval practice does not increase retrieval-induced forgetting

Recalling a subset of studied materials can impair subsequent retrieval of related, nontested materials. In two experiments, we examined the influence of providing corrective feedback (no feedback, immediate feedback, delayed feedback) during retrieval practice on this retrieval-induced forgetting effect. Performance was assessed with category cued recall (e.g., recall all exemplars studied under Weather), category-and-stem cued recall (e.g., Weather–B___), and recognition. We report a dissociation between the effects of feedback on memory of the tested materials and the nontested materials. Whereas providing immediate or delayed feedback (compared to no feedback) improved recall and recognition of the tested items, it had no influence on retrieval-induced forgetting. These results are consistent with the inhibition account of retrieval-induced forgetting. From an applied perspective, this finding is encouraging for students and educators who use testing to foster learning.     

Noncompetitive retrieval practice causes retrieval-induced forgetting in cued recall but not in recognition

Retrieving a subset of learned items can lead to the forgetting of related items. Such retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) can be explained by the inhibition of irrelevant items in order to overcome retrieval competition when the target item is retrieved. According to the retrieval inhibition account, such retrieval competition is a necessary condition for RIF. However, research has indicated that noncompetitive retrieval practice can also cause RIF by strengthening cue–item associations. According to the strength-dependent competition account, the strengthened items interfere with the retrieval of weaker items, resulting in impaired recall of weaker items in the final memory test. The aim of this study was to replicate RIF caused by noncompetitive retrieval practice and to determine whether this forgetting is also observed in recognition tests. In the context of RIF, it has been assumed that recognition tests circumvent interference and, therefore, should not be sensitive to forgetting due to strength-dependent competition. However, this has not been empirically tested, and it has been suggested that participants may reinstate learned cues as retrieval aids during the final test. In the present experiments, competitive practice or noncompetitive practice was followed by either final cued-recall tests or recognition tests. In cued-recall tests, RIF was observed in both competitive and noncompetitive conditions. However, in recognition tests, RIF was observed only in the competitive condition and was absent in the noncompetitive condition. The result underscores the contribution of strength-dependent competition to RIF. However, recognition tests seem to be a reliable way of distinguishing between RIF due to retrieval inhibition or strength-dependent competition.     

Unblocking memory through directed forgetting

The ability to remember an item can be blocked, or negatively primed, by exposure to related items. For example, ALLERGY is less likely to be generated given the word fragment A_L_ _GY if one is first exposed to ANALOGY. We examined whether this memory blocking effect is influenced by list-method directed forgetting. A total of 144 participants learned two lists of items, each consisting of words that were designed to negatively prime performance on a subsequent word fragment completion task. Participants who were told to forget List 1 before learning List 2 suffered significantly less memory blocking owing to the negative primes from List 1 than participants who were told to remember List 1. These results suggest that directed forgetting can modify the memory blocking effect by affecting the accessibility of information in memory.     

Metacognition influences item-method directed forgetting

In 4 experiments, we examined whether metacognitive beliefs about item memorability influence item-method directed forgetting. In Experiment 1, participants studied loud and quiet items, which were subsequently cued as to-be-remembered (TBR) or to-be-forgotten (TBF). Typically, the volume of stimuli does not influence recall, although loud items are judged as more memorable than quiet items (Rhodes & Castel, 2009). In contrast, we found a recall advantage for loud items in directed forgetting, although this was observed for TBR items but not TBF items. The loud item advantage disappeared in Experiment 2, when we eliminated all TBF trials and instead inserted additional trials during which participants could engage in extra rehearsal of earlier presented items. In Experiments 3 and 4, a recall advantage for loud items was observed again when items were assigned a mixture of positive and negative values, but it did not emerge when items were assigned graded positive values. Overall, the results showed that the recall advantage for loud items emerges only in response to the need to forget some items. We propose 2 mechanisms to account for these results-either participants select to rehearse loud items as a controlled strategy that allows them to forget some items, or they have an unconscious preference for loud items that emerges only in response to the need to forget. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

The effects of list-method directed forgetting on recognition memory

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois It is an almost universally accepted claim that the list-method procedure of inducing directed forgetting does not affect recognition. However, previous studies have omitted a critical comparison in reaching this conclusion. This article reports evidence that recognition of material learnedafter cue presentation is superior for conditions in which the material that preceded cue presentation was designated as to-be-forgotten. Because the absence of an effect of directed-forgetting instructions on recognition is the linchpin of the theoretical claim that retrieval inhibition and not selective rehearsal underlies that effect, the present results call into question the need to postulate a role for inhibition in directed forgetting.     

Impaired directed forgetting in abstinent heroin addicts

Drug-related memories persist long into abstinence and are potent elicitors of drug craving and relapse. We report two experiments examining whether heroin-dependent individuals are impaired in intentionally suppressing drug-related memories. Experiment 1 adopted the Item paradigm where addicts and healthy controls were presented with a list of words each followed by a remember or forget cue. Experiment 2 adopted the List paradigm where they studied one list of items and were then split into a remember group and a forget group. Both groups studied a second list, except that the forget group was told to forget the first list. Compared with controls, addicts showed a reduced directed forgetting effect in the Item method and a total absence of one measure of directed forgetting in the List method (List 2 benefits). Results indicate that heroin addicts are impaired in directed forgetting and that the deficits are likely associated with memory encoding as opposed to retrieval. Possible problems include reduced ability in actively suppressing/stopping encoding of irrelevant information into memory or inability in changing/resetting encoding strategies. In neither experiment did the addicts show any differential directed forgetting effects between drug-related words and neutral words, indicating the generic nature of their intentional forgetting deficits.     

The relative roles of input and output mechanisms in directed forgetting

Memory & Cognition - When Ss are presented a first set of items (Set A) followed by a second set (Set B), a postinput cue to recall only Set B results in better recall of Set B than does a cue...     

Context-dependent impairment of recollection in list-method directed forgetting

In list-method directed forgetting, people's ability to forget one of the sets of learned material is examined. Research shows that memory for to-be-forgotten items is impaired when assessed by a recall test and by recognition tests reliant on recollective processes. Retrieval inhibition and context-change mechanisms have been proposed to account for the directed forgetting effects and both of them account for the results obtained with recognition tests. However, the context change account makes a specific prediction that recollection is impaired by directed forgetting only if it makes use of contextual associations. In the present study, directed forgetting was examined with two types of recollection-based tasks making use of different types of associations, namely a list discrimination task utilising contextual associations and an associative recognition task utilising interitem associations. Consistent with the context change account, the costs of directed forgetting were observed in a list discrimination task and were not observed in an associative recognition task. The results indicate that impairment in recollection due to directed forgetting is not general and provide converging evidence to support the context-change account.     

The influence of directional associations on directed forgetting and interference

Two experiments examined how cross-list directional associations influenced list-method directed forgetting and the degree of interference observed on each list. Each List 1 item had a (a) bidirectionally related item on List 2 (chip <----> potato), (b) forward association with an item on List 2 (chip --> wood), (c) backward association from an item on List 2 (chip <-- chisel), or (d) no relationship with List 2 items. The results revealed that associative relationships that eliminated retroactive interference in the baseline condition also eliminated the directed forgetting costs. In contrast, associative relationships did not affect List 2 recall in the forget group, which remained unchanged across experimental conditions. However, certain conditions reduced proactive interference in the remember group, thereby eliminating the benefits of directed forgetting. The directed forgetting costs and benefits were observed independently of each other. The authors propose that these effects emerged from a combination of item and context strengthening induced by different associative directions.     

The effect of directed forgetting on the time to remember

A recognition memory task was used to determine whether the search set is reduced by cueing subject to forget a part of the input. Correct recognition reaction time was used to infer the size of the search set. The principal results were that RT on forget trials was faster than RT on remember trials and that RT was fastest when the forget cue was presented at the outset of the trial rather than after the material had been presented. These findings are generally consistent with the hypothesis that selective search is responsible for the enhancement of recall produced by forget instructions in earlier studies.     

Pre-experimental sleep effects on directed forgetting

A directed forgetting (DF) paradigm was used to compare the remembering and forgetting of participants with good sleep quality to those with poor sleep quality and the presence of insomnia symptoms. This study implemented a point system in place of remember and forget instructions in a DF task with the goal of computing DF costs and benefits. Relations among memory, sleep, and working memory capacity (WMC) were also examined. DF benefits were observed in both groups, with negative costs found for participants without the presence of insomnia symptoms. WMC was found to be related to memory for positive point items only, and did not differ based on sleep quality. These results suggest that the presence of self-reported insomnia symptoms does not affect performance on a DF task.