Conditions favoring retroactive interference between antecedent events (cue competition) and between subsequent events (outcome competition)

Retrieval of a target association (A-B) is often impaired if training of a similar association is interpolated between target training and testing; this is known asretroactive interference. Two experiments, in which rats were used as subjects in a sensory preconditioning preparation, studied the associative nature of retroactive interference between antecedent events (i.e., A and C in the A-B, C-B paradigm) and between subsequent events (i.e., B and C in the A-B, A-C paradigm). With the present preparation, retroactive interference was equally strong between antecedent events and between subsequent events. Moreover, interference occurred only if (1) an association was trained in the interpolated phase and (2) the target and interpolated associations had a common element in a common temporal location.     

Proactive interference and cuing effects in short-term cued recall: Does foil context matter?

Tehan and Humphreys's (1995, 1996) short-term cued recall paradigm showed that recall in short-term memory is cue driven. In critical trials, the participants studied two blocks of four words each and were required to forget the first block while remembering the second block. A foil in the first block (e.g., orange) was related to a target (e.g., carrot) in the second block. Proactive interference (PI) was evident when a retrieval cue was used that subsumed the foil and the target (e.g., type of juice), but not when a cue was used that subsumed only the target (e.g., type of vegetable). Four experiments were performed to examine the extent to which contextual organization in the foil block would enhance or diminish the foil's efficacy in creating PI. A novel condition was included in which the words in the foil block were studied in a phonologically related context but the target was cued semantically, and vice versa with a semantic context and phonological cue. There were no differences in recall accuracy between conditions with and without contextual organization, but reliable increases in foil intrusions were observed when contextual organization was present. Contextual organization enhanced the foil, rather than diminished it, but the strengthened foil generated PI only when the cue subsumed the foil and the target and had no effect when the cue subsumed only the target. The results are consistent with a cue-driven retrieval interpretation of short-term recall.     

Recognition during recall failure: Semantic feature matching as a mechanism for recognition of semantic cues when recall fails

Research suggests that a feature-matching process underlies cue familiarity-detection when cued recall with graphemic cues fails. When a test cue (e.g., potchbork) overlaps in graphemic features with multiple unrecalled studied items (e.g., patchwork, pitchfork, pocketbook, pullcork), higher cue familiarity ratings are given during recall failure of all of the targets than when the cue overlaps in graphemic features with only one studied target and that target fails to be recalled (e.g., patchwork). The present study used semantic feature production norms (McRae et al., Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547–559, 2005) to examine whether the same holds true when the cues are semantic in nature (e.g., jaguar is used to cue cheetah). Indeed, test cues (e.g., cedar) that overlapped in semantic features (e.g., a_tree, has_bark, etc.) with four unretrieved studied items (e.g., birch, oak, pine, willow) received higher cue familiarity ratings during recall failure than test cues that overlapped in semantic features with only two (also unretrieved) studied items (e.g., birch, oak), which in turn received higher familiarity ratings during recall failure than cues that did not overlap in semantic features with any studied items. These findings suggest that the feature-matching theory of recognition during recall failure can accommodate recognition of semantic cues during recall failure, providing a potential mechanism for conceptually-based forms of cue recognition during target retrieval failure. They also provide converging evidence for the existence of the semantic features envisaged in feature-based models of semantic knowledge representation and for those more concretely specified by the production norms of McRae et al. (Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547–559, 2005).     

Monitoring memory errors: The influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning

The current study examined the degree to which predictions of memory performance made immediately or at a delay are sensitive to confidently held memory illusions. Participants studied unrelated pairs of words and made judgements of learning (JOLs) for each item, either immediately or after a delay. Half of the unrelated pairs (deceptive items; e.g., nurse–dollar) had a semantically related competitor (e.g., doctor) that was easily accessible when given a test cue (e.g., nurse–do_ _ _r) and half had no semantically related competitor (control items; e.g., subject–dollar). Following the study phase, participants were administered a cued recall test. Results from Experiment 1 showed that memory performance was less accurate for deceptive compared with control items. In addition, delaying judgement improved the relative accuracy of JOLs for control items but not for deceptive items. Subsequent experiments explored the degree to which the relative accuracy of delayed JOLs for deceptive items improved as a result of a warning to ensure that retrieved memories were accurate (Experiment 2) and corrective feedback regarding the veracity of information retrieved prior to making a JOL (Experiment 3). In all, these data suggest that delayed JOLs may be largely insensitive to memory errors unless participants are provided with feedback regarding memory accuracy.     

Making remembering more memorable*

Memory retrieval is a cognitive operation that itself can be remembered or forgotten, with potentially important consequences. To study memory for prior remembering, we had participants first study target words (e.g., bark) alongside semantically related cue words (e.g., dog). Then, on Test 1, participants retrieved targets in response to either the study cue or a changed cue that was semantically related to a homograph of the target (e.g., birch). Finally, on Test 2, participants retrieved all targets in response to the original study cues, and participants judged whether targets were previously retrieved on Test 1. As in previous research, cue change on Test 1 rendered target retrievals less memorable, suggesting context changes harm memory for prior remembering. We hypothesised that the negative effect of context change could be ameliorated by reminding participants of the original study cues during Test 1. We had participants either retrieve (Experiments 1 and 3, Ns?=?46 and 62) or view (Experiment 2, N?=?118) the study cue following each target retrieval. Reminding significantly reduced the negative effect of cue change, with self-generation being especially potent. This indicates that reminding can make remembering more memorable in the face of context change.     

Learning from your mistakes: does it matter if you’re out in left foot,I mean field?

Studies have shown that generating errors prior to studying information (pencil–?) can improve target retention relative to passive (i.e., errorless) study, provided that cues and targets are semantically related (pencil–ink) and not unrelated (pencil-frog). In two experiments, we manipulated semantic proximity of errors to targets during trial-and-error to examine whether it would modulate this error generation benefit. In Experiment 1, participants were shown a cue (band–?) and asked to generate a related word (e.g., drum). Critically, they were given a target that either matched the semantic meaning of their guess (guitar) or mismatched it (rubber). In Experiment 2, participants studied Spanish words where the English translation either matched their expectations (pariente–relative) or mismatched it (carpeta–folder). Both experiments show that errors benefit memory to the extent that they overlap semantically with targets. Results are discussed in terms of the retrieval benefits of activating related concepts during learning.     

Encoding specificity revisited: the role of semantics.

Three experiments examined the effects of semantic characteristics of word pairs on memory using the encoding specificity paradigm. The paradigm involved four phases: (a) an encoding phase to relate cues and targets, (b) a phase in which words were generated to new cues, (c) a phase for recognition of generated targets, and (d) a cued-recall phase using the original encoding cues. Encoding pairs were classified a priori as either semantically similar (e.g., alluring-PRETTY), semantically contrasting (e.g., drab-PRETTY), or semantically unrelated (e.g., sore-PRETTY). Generation pairs were classified a priori as either semantically similar (e.g., beautiful-PRETTY) or semantically contrasting (e.g., ugly-PRETTY). For recall, the results showed that both the semantic relations between the encoding cue and target and the reprovision of the encoding cue at retrieval were important factors. In the case of recognition, however, both the semantic congruence between the encoding and generation contexts and the amount of semantic elaboration provided by the encoding context were important factors.     

When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?

Unsuccessful retrieval attempts can enhance subsequent encoding and learning. In three experiments, subjects either attempted to retrieve word pairs prior to studying them (e.g., attempting to recall tide–? before studying tide–beach) or did not attempt retrieval and retention of the studied targets was assessed on a subsequent cued recall test. Experiment 1 showed that attempting retrieval enhanced subsequent encoding and recall relative to not attempting retrieval when the word pairs were semantically related, but not when the pairs were unrelated. In Experiment 2, studying a different word pair prior to the correct pair (e.g., studying tide–wave prior to tide–beach) did not produce the same effect as attempting retrieval prior to studying. Constraining retrieval to a particular candidate word prior to study (e.g., recalling tide–wa__ before studying tide–beach) produced a negative effect on subsequent recall. Experiment 3 showed that attempting retrieval did not enhance encoding when a brief delay occurred between the retrieval attempt and the subsequent study trial. The results support the idea that a search set of candidates related to the retrieval cue is activated during retrieval and that this retrieval-specific activation can enhance subsequent encoding of those candidates.     

Feature overlap slows lexical selection: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm

How does the presence of a categorically related word influence picture naming latencies? In order to test competitive and noncompetitive accounts of lexical selection in spoken word production, we employed the picture–word interference (PWI) paradigm to investigate how conceptual feature overlap influences naming latencies when distractors are category coordinates of the target picture. Mahon et al. (2007. Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 503–535. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503) reported that semantically close distractors (e.g., zebra) facilitated target picture naming latencies (e.g., HORSE) compared to far distractors (e.g., whale). We failed to replicate a facilitation effect for within-category close versus far target–distractor pairings using near-identical materials based on feature production norms, instead obtaining reliably larger interference effects (Experiments 1 and 2). The interference effect did not show a monotonic increase across multiple levels of within-category semantic distance, although there was evidence of a linear trend when unrelated distractors were included in analyses (Experiment 2). Our results show that semantic interference in PWI is greater for semantically close than for far category coordinate relations, reflecting the extent of conceptual feature overlap between target and distractor. These findings are consistent with the assumptions of prominent competitive lexical selection models of speech production.     

Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect

Previous research has proposed that tests enhance retention more than do restudy opportunities because they promote the effectiveness of mediating information--that is, a word or concept that links a cue to a target (Pyc & Rawson, 2010). Although testing has been shown to promote retention of mediating information that participants were asked to generate, it is unknown what type of mediators are spontaneously activated during testing and how these contribute to later retention. In the current study, participants learned cue-target pairs through testing (e.g., Mother: _____) or restudying (e.g., Mother: Child) and were later tested on these items in addition to a never-before-presented item that was strongly associated with the cue (e.g., Father)--that is, the semantic mediator. Compared with participants who learned the items through restudying, those who learned the items through testing exhibited higher false alarm rates to semantic mediators on a final recognition test (Experiment 1) and were also more likely to recall the correct target from the semantic mediator on a final cued recall test (Experiment 2). These results support the mediator effectiveness hypothesis and demonstrate that semantically related information may be 1 type of natural mediator that is activated during testing.     

Conceptual similarity effects on working memory in sentence contexts: Testing a theory of anaphora

The degree of semantic similarity between an anaphoric noun phrase (e.g., the bird) and its antecedent (e.g., a robin) is known to affect the anaphor resolution process, but the mechanisms that underlie this effect are not known. One proposal (Almor, 1999) is that semantic similarity triggers interference effects in working memory and makes two crucial assumptions: First, semantic similarity impairs working memory just as phonological similarity does (e.g., Baddeley, 1992), and, second, this impairment interferes with processes of sentence comprehension. We tested these assumptions in two experiments that compared recall accuracy between phonologically similar, semantically similar, and control words in sentence contexts. Our results do not provide support for Almor's claims: Phonological overlap decreased recall accuracy in sentence contexts, but semantic similarity did not. These results shed doubt on the idea that semantic interference in working memory is an underlying mechanism in anaphor resolution.     

Setting semantics: conceptual set can determine the physical properties that capture attention

The ability of a stimulus to capture visuospatial attention depends on the interplay between its bottom-up saliency and its relationship to an observer’s top-down control set, such that stimuli capture attention if they match the predefined properties that distinguish a searched-for target from distractors (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044 1992). Despite decades of research on this phenomenon, however, the vast majority has focused exclusively on matches based on low-level physical properties. Yet if contingent capture is indeed a “top-down” influence on attention, then semantic content should be accessible and able to determine which physical features capture attention. Here we tested this prediction by examining whether a semantically defined target could create a control set for particular features. To do this, we had participants search to identify a target that was differentiated from distractors by its meaning (e.g., the word “red” among color words all written in black). Before the target array, a cue was presented, and it was varied whether the cue appeared in the physical color implied by the target word. Across three experiments, we found that cues that embodied the meaning of the word produced greater cuing than cues that did not. This suggests that top-down control sets activate content that is semantically associated with the target-defining property, and this content in turn has the ability to exogenously orient attention.     

Monitoring memory errors: the influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning

The current study examined the degree to which predictions of memory performance made immediately or at a delay are sensitive to confidently held memory illusions. Participants studied unrelated pairs of words and made judgements of learning (JOLs) for each item, either immediately or after a delay. Half of the unrelated pairs (deceptive items; e.g., nurse-dollar) had a semantically related competitor (e.g., doctor) that was easily accessible when given a test cue (e.g., nurse-do_ _ _r) and half had no semantically related competitor (control items; e.g., subject-dollar). Following the study phase, participants were administered a cued recall test. Results from Experiment 1 showed that memory performance was less accurate for deceptive compared with control items. In addition, delaying judgement improved the relative accuracy of JOLs for control items but not for deceptive items. Subsequent experiments explored the degree to which the relative accuracy of delayed JOLs for deceptive items improved as a result of a warning to ensure that retrieved memories were accurate (Experiment 2) and corrective feedback regarding the veracity of information retrieved prior to making a JOL (Experiment 3). In all, these data suggest that delayed JOLs may be largely insensitive to memory errors unless participants are provided with feedback regarding memory accuracy.     

Retrieval processes that produce interference in modified forced-choice recognition tests

Recognition can suffer if the retrieval cues activate more than one trace (e.g., for Flower A and Flower A′). We found evidence for two retrieval processes by examining interference effects in forcedchoice tests (e.g., Did you see Flower A or Flower A″?). Experiment 1 provided evidence of a problem in discriminating between temporally and contextually similar traces that were formed in the study phase. A competitor (Flower A′) interfered more if it was shown in the study phase rather than in the test phase. Experiments 2 and 3 found evidence for a blocking process in recognizing pairs of words (child—apple). A competitor interfered more if it was recent, shown at test rather than at study. This pattern occurred regardless of whether the competitor was similar to the target (child—orange) or dissimilar to it (child—truck). The importance of a particular retrieval process may depend on an item’s representation as well as on the retrieval cues.     

Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm

The dominant view in the field of lexical access in speech production maintains that selection of a word becomes more difficult as the levels of activation of nontarget words increase--selection by competition. The authors tested this prediction in two sets of experiments. First, the authors show that participants are faster to name pictures of objects (e.g., "bed") in the context of semantically related verb distractors (e.g., sleep) compared with unrelated verb distractors (e.g., shoot). In the second set of experiments, the authors show that target naming latencies (e.g., "horse") are, if anything, faster for within--category semantically close distractor words (e.g., zebra) than for within--category semantically far distractor words (e.g., whale). In the context of previous research, these data ground a new empirical generalization: As distractor words become semantically closer to the target concepts--all else being equal--target naming is facilitated. This fact means that lexical selection does not involve competition, and consequently, that the semantic interference effect does not reflect a lexical level process. This conclusion has important implications for models of lexical access and interpretations of Stroop-like interference effects.     

Interference resolution in retrieval-induced forgetting: Behavioral evidence for a nonmonotonic relationship between interference and forgetting

Retrieving memories renders related memories less accessible. This phenomenon, termed retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF), is thought to be the result of processes that resolve interference during competitive retrieval. In several studies, researchers have manipulated the level of interference to test different theoretical accounts of RIF (e.g., inhibitory vs. noninhibitory). However, the nature of how interference and RIF are related has not been systematically investigated. Here, we introduce a design that allows for assessing interference during competitive retrieval by measuring the recall RTs associated with target recall. Using such a design, we found that RIF occurred only when interference during competitive retrieval reached moderate levels, but not when it was too low or too high. This finding might indicate that low levels of interference do not trigger interference resolution, whereas interference resolution might fail when the interference reaches extremely high levels.     

Evidence for knowledge of the syntax of large numbers in preschoolers

The aim of this study was to provide evidence for knowledge of the syntax governing the verbal form of large numbers in preschoolers long before they are able to count up to these numbers. We reasoned that if such knowledge exists, it should facilitate the maintenance in short-term memory of lists of lexical primitives that constitute a number (e.g., three hundred forty five) compared with lists containing the same primitives but in a scrambled order (e.g., five three forty hundred). The two types of lists were given to 5-year-olds in an immediate serial recall task. As we predicted, the lists in syntactic order were easier to recall, suggesting that they match some knowledge of the way lexical primitives must be ordered to express large numerosities.     

Temporal discrimination using different feature--target intervals in classical conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response

In a typical conditional discrimination, a target stimulus (X) is reinforced during one feature cue (A-->X+), but not during another feature cue (B-->X-). The present experiments used only a single "feature" cue (a 66-sec tone). On half of the trials, the target stimulus (a 400-msec light) was paired with the reinforcer when the feature-target interval was one duration (e.g., 5 sec). On the remaining trials, the interval was different (e.g., 45 sec), and the target stimulus was presented without the reinforcer. All the animals acquired this temporal discrimination, and subsequent testing with other feature-target intervals yielded generalization-like gradients. These results provide solid evidence that each portion of a feature cue is encoded in a distinctive fashion. Had temporal encoding not occurred, the feature cue would have been just as ambiguous a predictor of the reinforcer as was the target stimulus, and discrimination would not have been possible. The integration of real-time temporal encoding mechanisms into models of conditional discrimination is discussed.     

Retroactive interference effects in implicit memory

One source of evidence for separate explicit and implicit memory systems is that explicit but not implicit memory is impacted by interference (e.g., Graf & Schacter, 1987). The present experiment examined whether retroactive interference (RI) effects could be obtained in implicit memory when a strong test of RI was used. People studied an original list of word pairs (e.g., COTTON-PRIZE) using the typical RI paradigm. During the interpolated phase, participants studied either interference pairs for which the same cue was re-paired with a different target (e.g., COTTON-PRINT) or novel pairs (e.g., HOST-VASE). RI was tested with the modified opposition cued recall test (Eakin, Schreiber, & Sergent-Marshall, 2003). The original-list cue was presented along with the beginning stem of its target (e.g., COTTON-PRI-) and a hint (e.g., not PRINT). RI effects were obtained for explicit and implicit memory. Taken together with prior research finding proactive interference effects in implicit memory, the findings indicate that implicit memory is not immune from retroactive interference. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Witnessing postevents does not change memory traces,but can affect their retrieval

The results of three experiments suggest that a memory trace for an event is not altered by witnessing similar events, but that postevents can interfere with its retrieval. On an immediate recall test, details from an original story (e.g. wrench) were recalled less often if a subsequent story mentioned a ‘screwdriver’ than if it did not. The interference effect occurred if people were asked to recall details fromboth stories (tool —— ——), but not if people were asked to recall primarily from the first story. Thus, the interference effect in immediate recall was averted if the target trace could be activated selectively (Experiments 1a and 1b). A more general interference effect was found after a day. Fewer targets from the original story were recalled if the second story was presented just before the test than if both stories occurred a day earlier. Thus, the second story interfered with recall only if it emphasized contextual retrieval cues that did not match the trace for the targets (Experiment 2). Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.