字表法定向遗忘对内隐记忆测验的影响

字表法定向遗忘是否影响内隐记忆测验,一直是记忆心理学家关注的焦点.本研究选取低频词语作为实验材料,引入指示符变量(记住、遗忘).以词干回忆和词干补笔分别作为外显和内隐记忆测验,考察字表法定向遗忘对内隐记忆测验的影响.结果发现:(1)内隐和外显记忆测验中都出现了显著的字表法定向遗忘效应;(2)字表法定向遗忘效应的机制应该是提取抑制,即要求遗忘的项目在提取时受到抑制而使记住项目的成绩更为突出,而不是偏好对记住项目复述的结果.     

提取练习在定向遗忘中的作用

根据汉字特点采用义同、形似、音同、无关四种实验材料,采用字表范式探讨不同提取练习次数(0、1、3次)在定向遗忘中的作用及是否会受到材料关系的影响.实验结果发现: (1)对于形似、音同材料,提取练习提高了最后回忆成绩.对于义同、无关材料,提取练习对不同组别两列字表的最后回忆成绩影响不同; (2)提取练习0次时,义同、音同、无关材料都表现出定向遗忘效应.提取练习1次时,无关材料表现出定向遗忘效应.提取练习3次时,形似、音同材料下表现出定向遗忘效应.义同、无关材料定向遗忘效应随着提取练习次数的增加而消失,形似材料随着提取练习次数的增加出现定向遗忘效应; (3)对于四种材料,遗忘组被试都没有随提取练习次数的增加而更多抑制字表1回忆,即字表l的回忆成绩都没有表现出随提取练习次数的增加而降低的趋势,所以能否用提取诱发遗忘来解释定向遗忘的提取抑制还需要进一步的实验验证.     

复述、提取抑制与有意遗忘的实验研究

有意遗忘是关于记忆研究的另一种实验范式,对于在实验中出现的要求遗忘的学习项目的记忆成绩差于要求记忆的项目的结果,目前主人存在着两种理论解释：基于编码的理论和基于提取抑制的理论。该实验运用单字提示方式,采用控制较为严密的补笔测验方法和加入所谓的“无关项”,对有意遗忘的心理过程进行进一步的探讨,实验表明：在单了提示方式下,被试在进行有意遗忘的过程中,既对记忆项进行了有意的复述又对遗忘项产生了提取抑制。     

两种范式下有意遗忘的实验研究

本文以英语词汇为材料,采用自由回忆和再认测验作为外显记忆测验,词干补笔测验作为内隐记忆测验,探讨小学五年级学生在单字范式与字表范式下的有意遗忘效应及其机制。结果发现:(1)单字范式下,三种测验中都存在有意遗忘效应;而字表范式下,只有词干补笔和自由回忆测验中存在有意遗忘效应;(2)三种测验中,单字范式下记忆项与遗忘项的差异显著高于字表范式下二者的差异。这表明,两种范式下有意遗忘效应产生的机制是不一致的,且相较于字表范式,单字范式下有意遗忘效应更显著。     

提取抑制:来自听觉定向遗忘的证据

两个实验采用语音材料考察了词表表达方式下听觉通道的定向遗忘效应以及相应的机制。实验一中,采用2（组别）×2（词表）混合实验设计获得了听觉通道的定向遗忘效应,但是较为模糊,部分数据显示可能是额外的被试个体差异导致的;实验二中,采用2（性别）×2（词表）×2（条件）×2（科系）混合实验设计,严格控制了被试个体差异等因素,获得了较清晰的定向遗忘效应,且支持提取抑制理论。     

合作学习情境下监控者监控发音任务中的定向遗忘效应

在以构建留学生的汉字语音库为共同目标的合作学习情境下,考察了合作学习中的监控者是否会表现出定向遗忘效应。实验一中,协助者朗读两字表的单字并接受定向遗忘或记忆字表中单字的指令;监控者监控发音的流畅性或准确性,并单独接受再认测验;实验二在协助者重新朗读单字的条件下监控者接受再认测验。结果发现:(1)实验一中,监控者只在深层监控发音准确性的任务时,再认成绩表现出定向遗忘效应,浅层监控发音流畅性的任务中未表现出定向遗忘效应;(2)实验二中在测验阶段复原学习情境后,深浅监控任务下的再认成绩虽存在显著差异,但定向遗忘效应也消失了。综合两个实验表明,合作学习情境下,非有意遗忘的监控者的定向遗忘效应与监控任务深度和学习情境复原与否存在密切联系。     

加工水平、回想策略与不自觉记忆

本研究有两项实验。实验一包括三种加工水平和三种不自觉记忆测验方式。结果表明,补笔不受加工水平影响。词干补笔是否受加工水平影响与词干补笔可能性的大小无关。实验二采用了问卷技术,在词干补笔测验后要求被试回答他在测验中是否进行了有意回想。结果表明,有意回想的被试对意义加工的单字比对结构加工的单字获得更高的起动效应;而没有回想的被试其结果不受加工水平影响,从而证实,词干补笔也不受加工水平影响。     

午睡对提取诱发遗忘的影响

研究使用提取诱发遗忘范式,在提取练习和最终测试间插入午睡（1小时）或等长时段的分心任务,通过比较午睡组和非午睡组的记忆成绩来探测午睡对提取诱发遗忘现象的影响。结果发现：（1）午睡组的Rp-项目正确率显著低于Nrp项目,出现了提取诱发遗忘效应;Rp+项目的正确率则显著高于Nrp项目,出现提取练习效应;（2）非午睡组的Rp-项目正确率和Nrp项目的正确率差异不显著,说明提取练习阶段后间隔一小时就不能观测到提取诱发遗忘现象。研究结果表明一小时的午睡巩固了提取诱发遗忘现象,首次从短期睡眠的角度支持了情景抑制假说。     

词频对列表法定向遗忘的影响

词频是否影响列表法定向遗忘一直是记忆心理学研究的热点.本研究引入词频(高频词、低频词)变量,通过操作指示符(记住、遗忘)来考察内隐记忆测验中列表法定向遗忘效应,结果显示:(1)在低频词语中,内隐记忆测验出现了显著的列表法定向遗忘效应;(2)而在高频词语上,内隐记忆测验中却未出现列表法定向遗忘效应;(2)列表法定向遗忘影响内隐记忆测验的机制应该是提取抑制.     

词频、测验方式影响单字法定向遗忘的实验研究

单字法定向遗忘一直是记忆研究的热点.本文引入词频(高频词、低频词)和测验方式(内隐记忆测验、外显记忆测验)变量继续考察单字法定向遗忘,结果显示:(1)低频词语的内隐和外显记忆测验中都出现了显著的定向遗忘效应;(2)高频词语的外显记忆测验中出现了明显的定向遗忘效应,而在内隐记忆测验中却未发现定向遗忘效应;(3)单字法定向遗忘的机制是复述和提取抑制.     

Source‐monitoring accuracy across repeated tests following directed forgetting

The repeated recall of items from lists that participants were earlier instructed to either remember or to forget was examined in two experiments. RR participants (those instructed to remember both lists they were presented) tended to recall more List 1 items than FR participants (those instructed to forget the first list and to remember the second list). FR participants recalled more List 2 items than did RR participants, but only when directed to report those items (Experiment 1), not when directed to report items from both lists (Experiment 2). Participants experienced difficulty correctly reporting the list source of items they recalled and incorrect source recall increased across tests, showing hypermnesia. This later result underscores the need for caution when assessing the accuracy of information retrieved from multiple sources across repeated tests. Together, the data patterns provide support for the retrieval dynamics account of hypermnesia, the context‐change account of directed forgetting, and limited support for the retrieval inhibition view of directed forgetting.     

When intended remembering leads to unintended forgetting

As a means of clarifying the memory dynamics that underlie retrieval-induced forgetting, we explored how instructing participants either to remember or to forget a previously presented list of items influences the susceptibility of those items to inhibition. According to the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting, it is the items that interfere most with retrieval practice that should be the most susceptible to the effects of inhibition. Consistent with this prediction, items from lists that participants were told to remember suffered from significantly more retrieval-induced forgetting than did items from lists that participants were told to forget.     

The role of retrieval practice in directed forgetting

Three experiments tested the possibility that retrieval-induced forgetting is responsible for directed forgetting with the list method. In Experiments 1 and 2, additional List 2 retrieval practice was given to determine whether this would increase directed forgetting. In Experiment 1 all items came from a single category, and in Experiment 2 unrelated words were used. In Experiment 3 additional List 2 study accompanied List 2 retrieval practice. There was no evidence that List 2 retrieval practice, with or without additional List 2 study, affected the magnitude of directed forgetting. It was argued that retrieval-induced forgetting could not account for these results. Accounts with greater viability include retrieval strategy disruption and a modified version of the dissociation hypothesis.     

提取抑制对错误记忆的影响

该研究探讨提取抑制能否减少错误记忆的发生.以自编的DRM词表为实验材料,实验1采用有意遗忘范式（有意抑制）,实验2采用部分线索效应范式（无意抑制）.实验1结果发现：关键诱饵在“记住”条件下的错误回忆成绩显著高于“遗忘”条件下的错误回忆成绩;学过项目在“记住”条件下的正确回忆成绩显著高于“遗忘”条件下的正确回忆成绩.实验2结果发现：关键诱饵在“无部分线索”条件下的错误回忆成绩显著高于“部分线索”条件下的错误回忆成绩;学过项目在“无部分线索”条件下的正确回忆成绩显著高于“部分线索”条件下的正确回忆成绩.研究结果提示：有意和无意两种提取抑制都可以降低错误记忆,结果支持基于激活与监测的双加工理论的观点.     

Limits of the Retrieval-Inhibition Construct: List Segregation in Directed Forgetting

The authors hypothesized that retrieval inhibition in list method directed forgetting could be improved by presenting a task that maximized the segregation step of the retrieval-inhibition process. In Experiment 1, they presented lists of semantically related words in a list method directed-forgetting task to maximize retrieval inhibition. Contrary to predictions, this manipulation eliminated the directed-forgetting effect. The authors further investigated the results of Experiment 1 in Experiments 2 and 3 by manipulating recall instructions and by presenting lists that contained both a categorized and an unrelated list-half. They found directed-forgetting effects for semantically related word lists when participants were asked to recall only the TBR (to-be-remembered) items but not when participants were asked to recall both the TBF (to-be-forgotten) and TBR items. They also found that directed-forgetting effects were not produced when categorized items were presented in the 1st list.     

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.     

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.     

When intended remembering leads to unintended forgetting

As a means of clarifying the memory dynamics that underlie retrieval-induced forgetting, we explored how instructing participants either to remember or to forget a previously presented list of items influences the susceptibility of those items to inhibition. According to the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting, it is the items that interfere most with retrieval practice that should be the most susceptible to the effects of inhibition. Consistent with this prediction, items from lists that participants were told to remember suffered from significantly more retrieval-induced forgetting than did items from lists that participants were told to forget.     

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.     

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.