Gone but not forgotten: the transient nature of retrieval-induced forgetting

Recent research has demonstrated that the act of remembering can prompt temporary forgetting or, more specifically, the inhibition of particular items in memory. Extending work of this kind, the present research investigated some possible boundary conditions of retrieval-induced forgetting. As expected, a critical determinant of temporary forgetting was the interval between guided retrieval practice and a final recall test. When these two phases were separated by 24 hr, retrieval-induced forgetting failed to emerge. When they occurred in the same testing session, however, retrieval practice prompted the inhibition of related items in memory (i.e., Experiment 1). A delay of 24 hr between the encoding of material and guided retrieval practice reduced but did not eliminate retrieval-induced forgetting (i.e., Experiment 2). These findings are considered in the wider context of adaptive forgetting.     

Overcoming the effects of intentional forgetting

The long-term effects of the compartmentalization of task-irrelevant memories were investigated using a directed forgetting procedure. Many models tacitly assume the persistence of the costs and benefits of directed forgetting or otherwise fail to predict what factors might reduce or eliminate them. In contrast, a retrieving effectively from memory model (REM; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009) predicts that intentional forgetting should only be observed for free recall when temporal context is used to probe memory. By manipulating whether study lists were constructed from category exemplars or from a random set of words, and by either providing temporal or category cues at test, we tested the prediction. The effects of directed forgetting were eliminated when categorized lists were studied and category cues were provided. When categorized lists were used but category cues were not provided, the usual costs and benefits of directed forgetting were observed. These results specify the conditions under which the consequences of intentional forgetting can be overcome.     

Accelerated relearning after retrieval-induced forgetting: the benefit of being forgotten

Research on retrieval-induced forgetting has demonstrated that retrieving some information from memory can cause the forgetting of other information in memory. Here, the authors report research on the relearning of items that have been subjected to retrieval-induced forgetting. Participants studied a list of category- exemplar pairs, underwent a series of retrieval-practice and relearning trials, and, finally, were tested on the initially studied pairs. The final recall of non-relearned items exhibited a cumulative effect of retrieval-induced forgetting such that the size of the effect increased with each block of retrieval practice. Of most interest, and very surprising from a common-sense standpoint, items that were relearned benefited more from that relearning if they had previously been forgotten. The results offer insights into the nature and durability of retrieval-induced forgetting and provide additional evidence that forgetting is an enabler--rather than a disabler--of future learning.     

IS FORGETTING REPREHENSIBLE? Holocaust Remembrance and the Task of Oblivion

“Forgetting” plays an important role in the lives of individuals and communities. Although a few Holocaust scholars have begun to take forgetting more seriously in relation to the task of remembering—in popular parlance as well as in academic discourse on the Holocaust—forgetting is usually perceived as a negative force. In the decades following 1945, the terms remembering and forgetting have often been used antithetically, with the communities of victims insisting on the duty to remember and a society of perpetrators desiring to forget. Thus, the discourse on Holocaust memory has become entrenched on this issue. This essay counters the swift rejection of forgetting and its labeling as a reprehensible act. It calls attention to two issues: first, it offers a critical argument for different forms of forgetting; second, it concludes with suggestions of how deliberate performative practices of forgetting might benefit communities affected by a genocidal past. Is it possible to conceive of forgetting not as the ugly twin of remembering but as its necessary companion?     

Influences of part-list cuing on different forms of episodic forgetting

Across 3 experiments, we examined the interplay of part-list cuing and forgetting, employing 3 different methods to induce episodic forgetting-list--method directed forgetting, context-dependent forgetting, and proactive interference. For each form of forgetting, participants were asked at test to recall the target items of a previously studied list in the presence or the absence of the list's remaining items serving as retrieval cues. We found such part-list cuing to amplify the forgetting in proactive interference but to diminish the forgetting in list-method directed forgetting and context-dependent forgetting. These results show that the effects of part-list cuing on forgotten memories depend critically on the circumstances surrounding the forgetting. If the forgetting reflects impaired access to the original encoding context, as has been suggested in list-method directed forgetting and context-dependent forgetting (but not in proactive interference), part-list cues improve access to forgotten memories; if the forgetting does not reflect such a contextual effect, no such beneficial effects emerge, and access to forgotten memories may even be impaired.     

A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting

Remembering and forgetting reflect fundamentally interdependent processes in human memory (Bjork, 2011). This interdependency is particularly apparent in research on retrieval-induced forgetting, which has shown that retrieving a subset of information can cause the forgetting of other information (Anderson et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 20:1063-1087, 1994). According to one prominent theoretical account, retrieval-induced forgetting is caused by an inhibitory process that acts to resolve competition during retrieval. Specifically, when cues activate competing, contextually inappropriate responses, those responses are claimed to be inhibited in order to facilitate the retrieval of target responses (Anderson Journal of Memory and Language 49: 415-445, 2003; Levy & Anderson Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 299-305, 2002; Storm, 2011b). Interest in retrieval-induced forgetting has grown steadily over the past two decades. In fact, a search of the abstracts at the 5th International Conference on Memory (ICOM, York University, 2011) revealed 40 presentations specifically mentioning "retrieval-induced forgetting," and nearly twice that number referring to the concept of inhibition. Clearly, researchers are interested in the empirical phenomenon of retrieval-induced forgetting, and inhibition is gaining increasing attention as a mechanism involved in memory. The goal of the present progress report is to critically review the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting and to provide direction so that future research can have a more meaningful impact on our understanding of human memory.     

Recall order determines the magnitude of directed forgetting in the within-participants list method

In three experiments, we investigated the effect of recall order on directed forgetting when the within-participants list method is used. Experiment 1 showed that participants tend to recall to-be-remembered (R) items before to-be-forgotten (F) items when they can recall items in any order. In Experiment 2, recall order was manipulated (F-R or R-F). The results showed that only the R-F order led to directed forgetting. Finally, in Experiment 3, recall order was also manipulated, and half of the participants were explicitly instructed to use a relational strategy when both F and R items were presented. Again, only the R-F order led to directed forgetting. These results demonstrate that directed forgetting under the list method hinges on the output order in which participants recall the F and R information. Thus, output order should be taken into account by researchers investigating specific mechanisms that lead to directed forgetting.     

单字法有意遗忘的内部心理机制：基于多项式加工树模型的分析

通过构建使用单个汉语双字词作为学习材料,并在测验阶段全面考察记忆提取过程的多项式加工树模型,探究单字法有意遗忘的心理机制。结果发现,对于TBF/R项目,遗忘组的储存能力和提取能力均弱于记忆组;对于TBR/R项目,遗忘组的储存能力强于记忆组。并且,无论在短SOA还是长SOA条件下,遗忘组对TBF项目后探测刺激的反应时都显著长于TBR项目。结果表明,单字法有意遗忘现象是选择性复述、注意抑制和提取抑制三种机制共同作用的结果。     

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.     

情绪对提取诱发遗忘的影响

从学习材料的情绪性和提取过程的情绪状态两方面考察了情绪对提取诱发遗忘的影响。结果发现提取练习对情绪性与非情绪性材料引发了同等程度的遗忘;提取练习阶段,当被试处于正性或中性情绪状态下也会发生明显的提取诱发遗忘现象,而当被试处于负性情绪状态时,提取练习不会导致对未提取项目的遗忘。研究结果表明,学习材料的情绪性不影响提取诱发遗忘,而提取过程的情绪状态会对提取诱发遗忘产生影响,负性情绪状态可以消除提取诱发遗忘。     

On the role of item similarity in retrieval-induced forgetting

We report on two experiments designed to examine how the similarity of retrieval-practised and not-retrieval-practised items influences the amount of retrieval-induced forgetting. Participants studied categorised item lists with each category consisting of exemplars from two different semantic subcategories. Using both the retrieval practice paradigm (Experiment 1) and the output interference paradigm (Experiment 2) we found that the retrieval of a subset of the studied items impaired the subsequent recall of the nonpractised items if the two types of items were fairly dissimilar to each other (same category but different subcategory) but did not induce impairment if the two types of items were highly similar (same category and subcategory). These results indicate that a high degree of similarity of practised and nonpractised items can eliminate retrieval-induced forgetting. They also suggest that forgetting in the retrieval practice paradigm and forgetting in the output interference paradigm are mediated by the same mechanisms. The relation of the present results to other very recent findings about the role of item similarity in retrieval-induced forgetting in discussed.     

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.     

情绪性记忆的主动遗忘

情绪性记忆的主动遗忘, 是指人们有意识地主动地遗忘带有情绪色彩的记忆内容, 但更多的是那些带来痛苦的负性情绪性记忆。主动遗忘又分为定向遗忘和压抑遗忘, 项目法和字表法是实验室中研究定向遗忘的主要方法, 而白熊任务和TNT任务是研究压抑遗忘的主要范式, 研究者们围绕两种遗忘做了大量研究。未来的研究应更关注情绪性记忆遗忘的不同心理机制, 不同研究范式与心理机制的交互作用, 情绪性记忆遗忘的个体差异, 情绪性记忆遗忘中事件遗忘和情绪反应遗忘的分离等 问题。     

Forgiveness,the Gift,and Ecclesiology

Abstract: This article responds to the work of George Lindbeck and John Milbank while putting forth a new position on the theology of gift and forgiveness. Saarinen constructs a rudimentary theological anthropology, focusing on God and human beings as givers. As an example of applying this “giver‐oriented perspective” he outlines a fourfold typology of forgiveness as (1) negative giving, forgetting; (2) negative and positive giving, forgetting; (3) negative giving, forgetting and remembering; (4) negative and positive giving, forgetting and remembering.     

Predicting one's own forgetting: the role of experience-based and theory-based processes

The authors examined the hypothesis that judgments of learning (JOL), if governed by processing fluency during encoding, should be insensitive to the anticipated retention interval. Indeed, neither item-by-item nor aggregate JOLs exhibited "forgetting" unless participants were asked to estimate recall rates for several different retention intervals, in which case their estimates mimicked closely actual recall rates. These results and others reported suggest that participants can access their knowledge about forgetting but only when theory-based predictions are made, and then only when the notion of forgetting is accentuated either by manipulating retention interval within individuals or by framing recall predictions in terms of forgetting rather than remembering. The authors interpret their findings in terms of the distinction between experience-based and theory-based JOLs.     

有意遗忘的脑机制

有意遗忘是指个体主动忘记无用和过时的信息,本质是记忆的主动抑制,包括定向遗忘和压抑遗忘。在定向遗忘中,记忆抑制既发生在编码阶段也发生在提取阶段,脑机制研究支持编码抑制理论和提取抑制理论;在压抑遗忘中,think和No-think所激活的脑区不同,No-think引起前额区域的激活增强和海马的激活减弱。未来应开展定向遗忘和压抑遗忘的脑机制差异研究,注重记忆抑制和其他心理活动抑制之间的差异研究,关注创伤个体的有意遗忘研究,拓展记忆控制神经网络的可塑性研究。     

Oh, honey, I already forgot that: strategic control of directed forgetting in older and younger adults

Two experiments investigated list-method directed forgetting with older and younger adults. Using standard directed forgetting instructions, significant forgetting was obtained with younger but not older adults. However, in Experiment 1 older adults showed forgetting with an experimenter-provided strategy that induced a mental context change--specifically, engaging in diversionary thought. Experiment 2 showed that age-related differences in directed forgetting occurred because older adults were less likely than younger adults to initiate a strategy to attempt to forget. When the instructions were revised to downplay their concerns about memory, older adults engaged in effective forgetting strategies and showed significant directed forgetting comparable in magnitude to younger adults. The results highlight the importance of strategic processes in directed forgetting.     

Short term forgetting in the absence of proactive interference

It has been claimed that the short-term forgetting shown by the Peterson technique is entirely due to proactive interference from prior experimental items. Two experiments investigated this by studying forgetting when prior items were avoided by testing subjects only once. Both experiments showed significant forgetting, although the degree of forgetting was less than with a multitrial procedure. On the basis of this and other results it is suggested that the Peterson technique comprises two components, a primary memory component which decays within 6 sec, and a more stable secondary memory component. Forgetting with the multitrial procedure is attributed principally to the need to use temporal retrieval cues to avoid confusion between successive items; longer retention intervals are associated with reduced temporal discriminability and hence poorer recall.     

The Epistemology of Forgetting

The default view in the epistemology of forgetting is that human memory would be epistemically better if we were not so susceptible to forgetting—that forgetting is in general a cognitive vice. In this paper, I argue for the opposed view: normal human forgetting—the pattern of forgetting characteristic of cognitively normal adult human beings—approximates a virtue located at the mean between the opposed cognitive vices of forgetting too much and remembering too much. I argue, first, that, for any finite cognizer, a certain pattern of forgetting is necessary if her memory is to perform its function well. I argue, second, that, by eliminating “clutter” from her memory store, this pattern of forgetting improves the overall shape of the subject’s total doxastic state. I conclude by reviewing work in psychology which suggests that normal human forgetting approximates this virtuous pattern of forgetting.     

内容与自我关联性对负性情绪记忆定向遗忘的影响

本研究使用消极情绪视频片段作为实验材料,采用词表法定向遗忘范式,用2个实验分别考察了内容与自我关联性对负性情绪要义和细节记忆的定向遗忘及其权衡的影响。研究结果表明：(1)内容关联性对定向遗忘几乎没有影响,在内容关联条件下,遗忘提示只增加了要义记忆没有增加细节记忆;(2)自我关联性对定向遗忘产生了影响,自我关联条件下出现了定向遗忘,而自我无关条件下定向遗忘消失;(3) 关联性对细节和要义记忆有不同的影响,表现出明显的要义-细节权衡。