Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

Remember to blink: Reduced attentional blink following instructions to forget

This study used rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) to determine whether, in an item-method directed forgetting task, study word processing ends earlier for forget words than for remember words. The critical manipulation required participants to monitor an RSVP stream of black nonsense strings in which a single blue word was embedded. The next item to follow the word was a string of red fs that instructed the participant to forget the word or green rs that instructed the participant to remember the word. After the memory instruction, a probe string of black xs or os appeared at postinstruction positions 1–8. Accuracy in reporting the identity of the probe string revealed an attenuated attentional blink following instructions to forget. A yes–no recognition task that followed the study trials confirmed a directed forgetting effect, with better recognition of remember words than forget words. Considered in the context of control conditions that required participants to commit either all or none of the study words to memory, the pattern of probe identification accuracy following the directed forgetting task argues that an intention to forget releases limited-capacity attentional resources sooner than an instruction to remember—despite participants needing to maintain an ongoing rehearsal set in both cases.     

Effects of memory instruction on attention and information processing: Further investigation of inhibition of return in item-method directed forgetting

In the item-method directed-forgetting paradigm, the magnitude of inhibition of return (IOR) is larger after an instruction to forget (F) than after an instruction to remember (R). In the present experiments, we further investigated this increased magnitude of IOR after F as compared to R memory instructions (dubbed the F > R IOR difference), in order to understand both the consequences for information processing and the purpose of the differential withdrawal of attention that results in this difference. Words were presented in one of four peripheral locations, followed by either an F or an R memory instruction. Then, a target appeared in either the same location as the previous word or one of the other locations. The results showed that the F > R IOR difference cannot be explained by attentional momentum (Exp. 1), that the spatial compatibility of the response options with target locations is not necessary for the F > R IOR difference to emerge (Exp. 2), and that the F > R IOR difference is location-specific rather than response-specific (Exp. 3). These results are consistent with the view that F > R IOR represents a bias against responding to information emanating from an unreliable source (Taylor & Fawcett, 2011).     

Selection for encoding: No evidence of better endogenous orienting following forget than following remember instructions

In an item-method directed forgetting task, attentional resources are withdrawn from forget item processing (e.g., Taylor & Fawcett in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1790–1814, 2011). Taylor and Hamm (Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 168–186, 2016) demonstrated that there is no corresponding increase in the proclivity for exogenous attention to be captured following a forget instruction. This means either that the attentional resources withdrawn from the forget item are reallocated immediately (and therefore not especially vulnerable to capture) or that it is not exogenous attention that is withdrawn. Given that endogenous attention is distinct from exogenous attention, we therefore extended the Taylor and Hamm study by using endogenous orienting rather than exogenous orienting. Words appeared individually in a peripheral location (Exp. 1) or in a central location (Exp. 2), followed by an instruction to either remember or forget. After a short (50-ms) or long (250-ms) interstimulus interval (ISI), a central cue (80% accurate) directed participants to allocate their attention to the left or right. This was followed by a discrimination target that appeared at a 1,000-ms cue–target stimulus onset asynchrony. A subsequent yes–no recognition test assessed memory for all study items. In both experiments, we observed better recognition of remember words than forget words—a directed forgetting effect. We also found a cueing effect, revealed as faster reaction times to discriminate cued targets than to discriminate uncued targets. There was not, however, an effect of memory instruction (and/or instruction–cue ISI) on the magnitude of this cueing effect. Thus, neither exogenous attention nor endogenous attention remains in an unengaged state following an instruction to forget.     

Directed forgetting shares mechanisms with attentional withdrawal but not with stop-signal inhibition

To explore the mechanisms underlying the ability to intentionally forget, the present study combined an itemmethod directed forgetting paradigm with tasks that measure stop-signal inhibition (Experiments 1 and 2) and inhibition of return (IOR; Experiment 2). Following each study-phase instruction to remember (R) or forget (F), a target was presented centrally (Experiment 1) or to the left or right in the visual periphery (Experiment 2); the target required a speeded response that was sometimes countermanded by a central stop signal. Although stopsignal reaction times were unaffected by the preceding memory instruction (or relationship with word-target location), F instructions improved stopping and delayed responses. Replicating previous findings in the literature, significant IOR was observed following F instructions but not following R instructions (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that intentional forgetting is an active cognitive process that more likely engages attentional mechanisms related to orienting than those related to stop-signal inhibition.     

Directed forgetting in the list method affects recognition memory for source

The effects of list-method directed forgetting on recognition memory were explored. In Experiment 1 (N = 40), observers were instructed to remember words and their type-cases; in Experiment 2 (N = 80), the instruction was to remember words and their colours. Two lists of 10 words were presented; after the first list, half of the observers (forget) were instructed to forget that list, and the other half (remember) were not given the forget instruction. Recognition of items (words) as well as source (encoding list + case/colour) was measured for forget and remember observers. The forget instruction affected case/colour memory more consistently than item and list memory; a multinomial analysis indicated that source information was affected by the forget instructions. The results indicated that recognition of source information may be a more sensitive indicator of forgetting than recognition of items.     

Directed forgetting in the list method affects recognition memory for source

The effects of list-method directed forgetting on recognition memory were explored. In Experiment 1 (N = 40), observers were instructed to remember words and their type-cases; in Experiment 2 (N = 80), the instruction was to remember words and their colours. Two lists of 10 words were presented; after the first list, half of the observers (forget) were instructed to forget that list, and the other half (remember) were not given the forget instruction. Recognition of items (words) as well as source (encoding list + case/colour) was measured for forget and remember observers. The forget instruction affected case/colour memory more consistently than item and list memory; a multinomial analysis indicated that source information was affected by the forget instructions. The results indicated that recognition of source information may be a more sensitive indicator of forgetting than recognition of items.     

越努力去忘就越能忘记吗？—情绪材料定向遗忘的"剂量效应"

采用项目法定向遗忘研究范式,在两个实验中分别使用情绪性语词和图片材料,考察主观努力程度影响情绪材料定向遗忘的心理机制。研究采用2(语词或图片情绪效价：正词/负词)×2（指示符：记住/忘记)×3（努力程度：20%/60%/100%）的被试内设计,因变量为情绪性语词或图片的再认率和定向遗忘效应。结果表明,正效价词在三种努力程度忘记条件的再认率无差别,而越努力去忘记负效价词,反而越能记住;正负效价的图片材料都呈现出越努力去忘记反而越能记住的特点。以上结果表明,语词与图片分别适合有意识加工和无意识加工,记住指令导致对情绪性语词和图片的选择性复述,符合选择性复述/被动衰退理论,而不同努力程度的忘记指令又引发了对情绪性语词和图片的主动抑制,符合注意抑制/执行控制理论。     

Item-Cued Directed Forgetting of Related Words and Pictures in Children and Adults: Selective Rehearsal Versus Cognitive Inhibition

The main purpose of this study was to compare the relative importance of selective rehearsal and cognitive inhibition in accounting for developmental changes in the directed-forgetting paradigm developed by R. A. Bjork (1972). In two experiments, children in Grades 2 and 5 and college students were asked to remember some words or pictures and to forget others when items were categorically related. Their memory for both items and the associated remember or forget cues was then tested with recall and recognition. Fifth graders recognized more of the forget-cued words than college students did. The pattern of results suggested that age differences in rehearsal and source monitoring (i.e., remembering whether a word had been cued remember or forget) were better explanatory mechanisms for children's forgetting inefficiencies than retrieval inhibition was. The results are discussed in terms of a multiple process view of inhibition.     

The item and list methods of directed forgetting: test differences and the role of demand characteristics

In directed forgetting, the item method presents instructions to remember or to forget individual items; the list method presents a single mid-list instruction to forget the first half of the list. Initial free recall was better for remember (R) words than for forget (F) words under both methods. Offered 50 cents for each additional F word, subjects could recall almost no more items, eliminating a demand characteristics explanation. On a yes/no recognition test, only the item method showed directed forgetting. Retrospective instruction identification was good except for F words under the list method, where performance was at chance. There was no evidence of speed-accuracy tradeoff on the recognition or instruction identification tests. These results bring together the major findings concerning directed forgetting and support a method-based theoretical distinction.     

Withdrawal of spatial overt attention following intentional forgetting: evidence from eye movements

Eye movements were measured to examine whether item-method directed forgetting involved a spatial overt attention shift. Experiment 1 showed that participants’ eyes were moved away from the study word following the forget and ignore cues, but not the remember cue. Experiment 2 revealed that the eyes were moved away from the area that covered by the study word even when the study word disappeared upon the presentation of the memory cue. Both the study word and memory cue were presented auditorily in Experiment 3. In all experiments, the to-be-remembered words were recalled better than both to-be-forgotten and to-be-ignored words. More importantly, mental effort, as indexed by the pupil size, increased following the remember, as compared with the forget and ignore cues. These findings are discussed in terms of controlling spatial overt attention after encoding to withdraw attention from irrelevant information and to allocate cognitive resources to relevant information for long-term retention.     

Item-cued directed forgetting of related words and pictures in children and adults: selective rehearsal versus cognitive inhibition

The main purpose of this study was to compare the relative importance of selective rehearsal and cognitive inhibition in accounting for developmental changes in the directed-forgetting paradigm developed by R. A. Bjork (1972). In two experiments, children in Grades 2 and 5 and college students were asked to remember some words or pictures and to forget others when items were categorically related. Their memory for both items and the associated remember or forget cues was then tested with recall and recognition. Fifth graders recognized more of the forget-cued words than college students did. The pattern of results suggested that age differences in rehearsal and source monitoring (i.e., remembering whether a word had been cued remember or forget) were better explanatory mechanisms for children's forgetting inefficiencies than retrieval inhibition was. The results are discussed in terms of a multiple process view of inhibition.     

The role of source memory in older adults' recollective experience

Younger adults' "remember" judgments are accompanied by better memory for the source of an item than "know" judgments. Furthermore, remember judgments are not merely associated with better memory for individual source features but also with bound memory for multiple source features. However, older adults, independent of their subjective memory experience, are generally less likely to "bind" source features to an item and to each other in memory (i.e., the associative deficit). In two experiments, we tested whether memory for perceptual source features, independently or bound, is also the basis for older adults' remember responses or if their associative deficit leads them to base their responses on other types of information. The results suggest that retrieval of perceptual source features, individually or bound, forms the basis for younger but not for older adults' remember judgments even when the overall level of memory for perceptual sources is closely equated (Experiment 1) and when attention is explicitly directed to the source information at encoding (Experiment 2).     

Direct versus indirect tests of memory: Directed forgetting meets the generation effect

Subjects read 20 words and generated 20 others from definitions during a 40-item study phase. Production of each word was followed by an instruction to remember or to forget that word. In free recall, a direct test of memory, words that had been generated were recalled much better than words that had been read. The remember-forget instructional manipulation affected read words but not generated words. In speeded word reading, an indirect test of memory, all studied words showed priming, but read words showed more priming than generated words. Here, the effect of remember versus forget instructions appeared only for generated words. These dissociations of a direct and an indirect test indicate that two powerful encoding manipulations affect separable processes to which these tests are differentially sensitive.     

The recall of stereotypes: the effects of incidentally activated directed forgetting instructions

Based on the automotive model (J. A. Bargh, 1990) and the directed forgetting paradigm, the present study investigated whether incidentally activated forget and remember cues can lead to similar effects as explicitly given instructions. To this end, the present paper attempted to replicate the findings of Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, and Ford (1997) employing their category primes (child abuser, neutral), study lists (List 1, List 2), and procedure. Using explicit directed forgetting instructions, Experiment 1 showed that the recall of the stereotypically relevant words (List 1) was higher when participants were given a remember than a forget instruction. This effect was found regardless of the prime conditions. Similarly, Experiment 2 showed that participants in the child abuser and neutral prime conditions recalled more stereotypically relevant words (List 1) when they were implicitly cued to remember than to forget these words. Experiment 3 showed that cognitively busy participants in the child-abuser, but not in the neutral prime condition, recalled more to-be-forgotten stereotypical words than nonbusy participants. These results are consistent with Macrae et al. s findings, and show that the effects of directed forgetting instructions are similar regardless of whether they were given explicitly or were activated incidentally. Results are discussed in relation to stereotype maintenance.     

Remembering things that never occurred: the effects of to-be-forgotten stereotypical information

Participants, 68 female and male nonpsychology university students, studied stereotypical and nonstereotypical words either with an initially activated social category (immigrant prime) or with no social category (neutral prime). They were then instructed to either forget or remember the studied words. This was followed by a recognition test. Based on the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm and stereotype-accessibility research, we anticipated that the participants in the immigrant, but not in the neutral, prime condition would falsely recognize more nonstudied stereotypic attributes under a forget than a remember instruction. The results supported our hypothesis. Implications of the outcome for eyewitness testimony, juridical decision-making, and stereotype maintenance are discussed.     

Are we aware of our ability to forget? Metacognitive predictions of directed forgetting

It is often important to accurately predict not only what information we will later remember, but also what information we are likely to forget. The present research examined these abilities in the context of item-method directed forgetting, to determine whether people are aware of their strategic control of remembering and forgetting, as well as what cues are used when making metacognitive judgments. Participants studied words, each of which was followed by a cue to remember (R) or forget (F) the word for an upcoming test, and also made predictions of how likely they would be to later recall each word. When asked to recall all of the words, regardless of cue, both recall and predicted recall were fairly sensitive to the R or F instructions, despite some overconfidence. A similar and stronger pattern was found when words were assigned positive or negative point values as cues to remember or forget. These findings suggest that item-based cues to remember or forget information can be successfully utilized when making metacognitive judgments, and that people are fairly aware of the control they have over both remembering and forgetting information.     

Recognition memory and awareness: A high-frequency advantage in the accuracy of knowing

The well-established advantage of low-frequency words over high-frequency words in recognition memory has been found to occur in remembering and not knowing. Two experiments employed remember and know judgements, and divided attention to investigate the possibility of an effect of word frequency on know responses given appropriate study conditions. With undivided attention at study, the usual low-frequency advantage in the accuracy of remember responses, but no effect on know responses, was obtained. Under a demanding divided attention task at encoding, a high-frequency advantage in the accuracy of know responses was obtained. The results are discussed in relation to theories of knowing, particularly those incorporating perceptual and conceptual fluency.     

Recognition memory and awareness: A high-frequency advantage in the accuracy of knowing

The well-established advantage of low-frequency words over high-frequency words in recognition memory has been found to occur in remembering and not knowing. Two experiments employed remember and know judgements, and divided attention to investigate the possibility of an effect of word frequency on know responses given appropriate study conditions. With undivided attention at study, the usual low-frequency advantage in the accuracy of remember responses, but no effect on know responses, was obtained. Under a demanding divided attention task at encoding, a high-frequency advantage in the accuracy of know responses was obtained. The results are discussed in relation to theories of knowing, particularly those incorporating perceptual and conceptual fluency.     

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.