Attention during memory retrieval enhances future remembering

Memory retrieval is a powerful learning event that influences whether an experience will be remembered in the future. Although retrieval can succeed in the presence of distraction, dividing attention during retrieval may reduce the power of remembering as an encoding event. In the present experiments, participants studied pictures of objects under full attention and then engaged in item recognition and source memory retrieval under full or divided attention. Two days later, a second recognition and source recollection test assessed the impact of attention during initial retrieval on long-term retention. On this latter test, performance was superior for items that had been tested initially under full versus divided attention. More importantly, even when items were correctly recognized on the first test, divided attention reduced the likelihood of subsequent recognition on the second test. The same held true for source recollection. Additionally, foils presented during the first test were also less likely to be later recognized if they had been encountered initially under divided attention. These findings demonstrate that attentive retrieval is critical for learning through remembering.     

Retrieval-induced forgetting: Evidence for a recall-specific mechanism

Previous work has shown that recalling information from long-term memory can impair the long-term retention of related representations—a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). We report an experiment in which the question of whether retrieval is necessary to induce this form of impairment was examined. All the subjects studied six members from each of eight taxonomic categories (e.g.,fruit orange). In the competitive practice condition, the subjects practiced recalling three of the six members, using category-stem cues (e.g.,fruit or____). In the noncompetitive practice condition, the subjects were reexposed to these same members for the same number of repetitions but were asked to recall the category name by using the exemplar and a stem as cues (e.g.,fr____orange). Despite significant and comparable facilitation of practiced items in both conditions, only the competitive practice subjects were impaired in their ability to recall the nonpracticed members on a delayed cued-recall test. These findings argue that retrieval-induced forgetting is not caused by increased competition arising from the strengthening of practiced items, but by inhibitory processes specific to the situation of recall.     

Study for now,but judge for later: Delayed judgments of learning promote long‐term retention

Larsson Sundqvist, M., Todorov, I., Kubik, V. & Jönsson, F.U. (2012) Study for now, but judge for later: Delayed judgments of learning promote long‐term retention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 450–454. Delayed judgments of learning (JOL) are assumed to be based on covert retrieval attempts. A common finding is that testing memory during learning improves later retention (i.e., the testing effect), and even more so than an equivalent amount of study, but only after a longer retention interval. To test the assertion that also delayed JOLs improve memory, the participants either studied Swahili‐Swedish word pairs four times, or they both studied (two times) and performed delayed JOLs (two times) alternately. Final cued recall test were given after either five minutes or one week. Results showed a reliable learning‐group by retention‐interval interaction, with less forgetting in the group that alternated between studying and making JOLs. The results are discussed in relation to the self‐fulfilling prophecy account of Spellman and Bjork (1992) , and in terms of study advice, the results further underscore the importance of delaying JOLs when studying and evaluating one’s ongoing learning.     

提取过程越久记忆保持越好吗？材料难度的调节作用

提取练习效应揭示了提取对记忆保持的关键意义;学习时间分配的有关研究表明提取练习效应的大小可能与材料难度有关。两个实验探讨了提取时间与材料难度对提取练习效应的影响：实验1采用2（提取时间：短,长）×2（材料难度：容易,困难）的混合设计,5分钟后测查记忆保持水平。实验2采用类似设计,将最终测试间隔延长至24小时。结果发现,⑴ 延长提取时间均提高了记忆成绩和记忆保持率。⑵ 即时测试条件下,提取时间较短时,不同难度材料的记忆成绩差异不显著;提取时间较长时,困难材料的记忆成绩高于容易材料;困难材料的记忆保持率在不同提取时间下均高于容易材料。⑶ 延迟测试条件下,无论提取时间长短,困难材料的记忆成绩及保持率均高于容易材料。研究表明,延长提取时间对提取练习效应的影响受材料难度的调节;情境背景和必要难度是解释该调节作用的可能理论框架。     

Effects of aging and divided attention on recognition memory processes for single and associative information

In the divided attention paradigm to test age-related associative memory deficits, whether the effects of divided attention occur at encoding or retrieval has not been clarified, and the effect on retention has not been studied. This study explored whether and how much divided attention at either encoding, retention, or retrieval diminished accuracy in recognizing a single feature (object or location) and associated features (object+location) by 23 elderly people (13 women; M age = 70.6 yr., SD = 2.8) recruited from a neighborhood community circle, and 29 female college students (M age = 20.8 yr., SD = 1.1). The results showed a significant decline in memory performance for both age groups due to divided attention in location and associative memory at retention, suggesting that the retention process demands attentional resources. Overall, regardless of their relative deficiency in associative memory, older adults showed an effect of divided attention comparable to that of younger adults in a recognition task.     

A strategy disruption component to retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieval-induced forgetting refers to a paradoxical occurrence wherein the act of remembering some material disrupts the retrieval of other, related material (see, e.g., M. C. Anderson, R. A. Bjork, & E. L. Bjork, 1994). This effect is generally accounted for in terms of inhibitory processes. Across three experiments, we test the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting, as well as whether there may be a strategy disruption component to the effect. In our first two experiments, we manipulate which items individuals are cued to recall during retrieval practice and demonstrate that retrieval-induced forgetting can be neutralized when those items do not interfere with the individual's retrieval strategy. In the third experiment, we confirm this finding with a different set of stimuli. These results are inconsistent with a purely inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting, and we discuss implications for inhibition theory and strategy disruption in light of these and other findings.     

Retrieval-induced forgetting occurs in tests of item recognition

Using the retrieval-practice paradigm (Anderson, R. A. Bjork, & E. L. Bjork, 1994), we tested whether or not retrieval-induced forgetting could be found in item recognition tests. In Experiment 1, retrieval practice on items from semantic categories depressed recognition of nonpracticed items from the same categories. Similar results were found in Experiment 2 in a more stringent source test for practiced, nonpracticed, and new items. These results conceptually replicate those of previous retrieval-induced forgetting studies done with cued recall (e.g., Anderson et al., 1994). Our findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that item-specific cues during retrieval will eliminate retrieval interference in the retrieval-practice paradigm (Butler, Williams, Zacks, & Maki, 2001). We discuss our results in relation to other retrieval interference and inhibition effects in recall and recognition.     

Target preexposure eliminates the effect of distraction on event-based prospective memory

Prospective memory is critical to everyday functioning and can be vulnerable to distraction. We conducted an experiment to explore whether we could buffer prospective memory against distraction. For half the participants, we preexposed stimuli that were later designated as prospective memory targets. Then, all participants performed an ongoing task (in which the prospective memory task was embedded) under standard and high attentional demand (i.e., under full and divided attention). Target preexposure improved prospective memory and eliminated the significant divided attention effect. Thus, target preexposure seems to buffer prospective memory against the disruptive effect of dividing attention. Moreover, target preexposure seemed to help participants to respond with the correct intended action. This result implies that preexposure to the target stimuli facilitated the encoding of an association between the target stimuli and the intended action, perhaps promoting relatively more reflexive retrieval and thereby buffering prospective memory against distraction.     

Optimizing retrieval as a learning event: When and why expanding retrieval practice enhances long-term retention

Retrieving information from memory makes that information more recallable in the future than it otherwise would have been. Optimizing retrieval practice has been assumed, on the basis of evidence and arguments tracing back to Landauer and Bjork (1978), to require an expanding-interval schedule of successive retrievals, but recent findings suggest that expanding retrieval practice may be inferior to uniform-interval retrieval practice when memory is tested after a long retention interval. We report three experiments in which participants read educational passages and were then repeatedly tested, without feedback, after an expanding or uniform sequence of intervals. On a test 1 week later, recall was enhanced by the expanding schedule, but only when the task between successive retrievals was highly interfering with memory for the passage. These results suggest that the extent to which learners benefit from expanding retrieval practice depends on the degree to which the to-belearned information is vulnerable to forgetting.     

Repeated retrieval practice and item difficulty: Does criterion learning eliminate item difficulty effects?

A wealth of previous research has established that retrieval practice promotes memory, particularly when retrieval is successful. Although successful retrieval promotes memory, it remains unclear whether successful retrieval promotes memory equally well for items of varying difficulty. Will easy items still outperform difficult items on a final test if all items have been correctly recalled equal numbers of times during practice? In two experiments, normatively difficult and easy Lithuanian–English word pairs were learned via test–restudy practice until each item had been correctly recalled a preassigned number of times (from 1 to 11 correct recalls). Despite equating the numbers of successful recalls during practice, performance on a delayed final cued-recall test was lower for difficult than for easy items. Experiment 2 was designed to diagnose whether the disadvantage for difficult items was due to deficits in cue memory, target memory, and/or associative memory. The results revealed a disadvantage for the difficult versus the easy items only on the associative recognition test, with no differences on cue recognition, and even an advantage on target recognition. Although successful retrieval enhanced memory for both difficult and easy items, equating retrieval success during practice did not eliminate normative item difficulty differences.     

Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention

Expanding retrieval practice (T. K. Landauer & R. A. Bjork, 1978) is regarded as a superior technique for promoting long-term retention relative to equally spaced retrieval practice. In Experiments 1 and 2, the authors found that expanding retrieval practice of vocabulary word pairs produced short-term benefits 10 min after learning, conceptually replicating Landauer and Bjork's results. However, equally spaced retrieval produced superior retention 2 days later. This pattern occurred both with and without feedback after test trials. In Experiment 3, the 1st test occurred immediately or after a brief delay, and repeated tests were expanding or equally spaced. Delaying the first test improved long-term retention, regardless of how the repeated tests were spaced. The important factor for promoting long-term retention is delaying initial retrieval to make it more difficult, as is done in equally spaced retrieval but not in expanding retrieval. Expanding the interval between repeated tests had little effect on long-term retention in 3 experiments.     

Do metacognitive judgments alter memory performance beyond the benefits of retrieval practice? A comment on and replication attempt of Dougherty,Scheck, Nelson,and Narens (2005)

A central question in the metacognitive literature concerns whether the act of making a metacognitive judgment alters one’s memory for the information about which the judgment was made. Dougherty, Scheck, Nelson, and Narens (2005, Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1096–1115) attempted to address this question by having participants make either retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs; i.e., evaluations of past retrieval success), judgments of learning (JOLs; i.e., predictions of future retrieval success), or no explicit judgments. When comparing final retrieval accuracy they found that accuracy was greater for items where participants had made JOLs compared with items that received RCJs or no judgment, suggesting that simply making a JOL can improve later memory performance. The present article presents results from four separate replication attempts that fail to duplicate this finding. Combined results provide compelling evidence that making a metacognitive judgment, regardless of the type, has no impact on later memory performance above and beyond retrieval practice.     

The role of retrieval mode and retrieval orientation in retrieval practice: insights from comparing recognition memory testing formats and restudying

The effectiveness of retrieval practice for aiding long-term memory, referred to as the testing effect, has been widely demonstrated. However, the specific neurocognitive mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unclear. In the present study, we sought to explore the role of pre-retrieval processes at initial testing on later recognition performance by using event-related potentials (ERPs). Subjects studied two lists of words (Chinese characters) and then performed a recognition task or a source memory task, or restudied the word lists. At the end of the experiment, subjects received a final recognition test based on the remember–know paradigm. Behaviorally, initial testing (active retrieval) enhanced memory retention relative to restudying (passive retrieval). The retrieval mode at initial testing was indexed by more positive-going ERPs for unstudied items in the active-retrieval tasks than in passive retrieval from 300 to 900 ms. Follow-up analyses showed that the magnitude of the early ERP retrieval mode effect (300–500 ms) was predictive of the behavioral testing effect later on. In addition, the ERPs for correctly rejected new items during initial testing differed between the two active-retrieval tasks from 500 to 900 ms, and this ERP retrieval orientation effect predicted differential behavioral testing gains between the two active-retrieval conditions. Our findings confirm that initial testing promotes later retrieval relative to restudying, and they further suggest that adopting pre-retrieval processing in the forms of retrieval mode and retrieval orientation might contribute to these memory enhancements.     

Episodic generation can cause semantic forgetting: Retrieval-induced forgetting of false memories

In two experiments, we tested whether false recognition and false recall were prone to retrieval-induced forgetting, using the retrieval practice paradigm (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). Participants encoded lists of cue-target word pairs associated with a nonpresented, critical theme word and then engaged in retrieval practice for half of the word pairs from half of the lists. As expected, unpracticed targets from practiced lists were recognized (Experiment 1) and recalled (Experiment 2) less well than those from unpracticed lists. In addition, false recognition and false recall of critical items associated with practiced lists was lower than false recognition and false recall of items associated with unpracticed lists. We argue that false memories are prone to inhibitory mechanisms engendered by the retrieval practice paradigm. The results are consistent with the claim that semantically activated critical themes interfere with the episodic retrieval of list words and that inhibition decreases the activation level of these interfering memory representations during retrieval practice.     

Reversing the testing effect by feedback: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence

The testing effect refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied information enhances its long-term retention more than restudy practice does. Recent work showed that the testing effect can be dramatically reversed when feedback is provided to participants during final recall testing (Storm, Friedman, Murayama, & Bjork, 2014). Following this prior work, in this study, we examined the reversal of the testing effect by investigating oscillatory brain activity during final recall testing. Twenty-six healthy participants learned cue–target word pairs and underwent a practice phase in which half of the items were retrieval practiced and half were restudy practiced. Two days later, two cued recall tests were administered, and immediate feedback was provided to participants in Test 1. Behavioral results replicated the prior work by showing a testing effect in Test 1, but a reversed testing effect in Test 2. Extending the prior work, EEG results revealed a feedback-related effect in alpha/lower-beta and retrieval-related effects in slow and fast theta power, with practice condition modulating the fast theta power effect for items that were not recalled in Test 1. The results indicate that the reversed testing effect can arise without differential strengthening of restudied and retrieval-practiced items via feedback learning. Theoretical implications of the findings, in particular with respect to the distribution-based bifurcation model of testing effects (Kornell, Bjork, & Garcia, 2011), are discussed.     

Less we forget: Retrieval cues and release from retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieving some items from memory can impair the subsequent recall of other related but not retrieved items, a phenomenon called retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). The dominant explanation of RIF??the inhibition account??asserts that forgetting occurs because related items are suppressed during retrieval practice to reduce retrieval competition. This item inhibition persists, making it more difficult to recall the related items on a later test. In our set of experiments, each category was designed such that each exemplar belonged to one of two subcategories (e.g., each BIRD exemplar was either a bird of prey or a pet bird), but this subcategory information was not made explicit during study or retrieval practice. Practicing retrieval of items from only one subcategory led to RIF for items from the other subcategory when cued only with the overall category label (BIRD) at test. However, adapting the technique of Gardiner, Craik, and Birtwistle (Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior 11:778?C783, 1972), providing subcategory cues during the final test eliminated RIF. The results challenge the inhibition account??s fundamental assumption of cue independence but are consistent with a cue-based interference account.     

Confidence in accuracy moderates the benefits of retrieval practice

ABSTRACT

The effect of Retrieval Practice refers to the phenomenon that taking a practice test is more effective for learning than re-study, probably due to the benefit from processes underlying successful retrievals during practice. However, it is rarely studied whether other processes (e.g., metacognitive monitoring) during retrieval practice may also play an important role. In two experiments, we examined whether the effectiveness of retrieval was affected by subjects’ confidence in their retrieval success. Subjects studied word-pairs and rated their confidence after each practice test trial (cued-recall in Exp.1, multiple choice in Exp.2), or re-study trial. In both experiments, we observed the classic retrieval practice effect. Moreover, in Exp.2, the benefits differed as a function of subjects’ confidence in their retrieval performance: the effect of retrieval practice only emerged for high-confidence trials with higher than 56% confidence. In summary, the retrieval practice only facilitates the retention of correct answers with high confidence.     

Retrieval activates related words more than presentation

Retrieving information enhances learning more than restudying. One explanation of this effect is based on the role of mediators (e.g., sand-castle can be mediated by beach). Retrieval is hypothesised to activate mediators more than restudying, but existing tests of this hypothesis have had mixed results [Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1547–1552. doi:10.1037/a0024140; Lehman, M., &; Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Elaborative retrieval: Do semantic mediators improve memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1573–1591. doi:10.1037/xlm0000267]. The present experiments explored an explanation of the conflicting results, testing whether mediator activation during a retrieval attempt depends on the accessibility of the target information. A target was considered less versus more accessible when fewer versus more cues were given during retrieval practice (Experiments 1 and 2), when the target had been studied once versus three times initially (Experiment 3), or when the target could not be recalled versus could be recalled during retrieval practice (Experiments 1–3). A mini meta-analysis of all three experiments revealed a small effect such that retrieval activated mediators more than presentation, but mediator activation was not reliably related to target accessibility. Thus, retrieval may enhance learning by activating mediators, in part, but these results suggest the role of other processes, too.     

Effects of multiplication practice on product verification: Integrated structures model or retrieval-induced forgetting?

In theintegrated structures model of simple multiplication (Manly &; Spoehr, 1999), it is proposed that retrieval of a multiplication fact (e.g., 2 × 7=?) activates and strengthens operand multiples representations (e.g., 4, 6, 8, etc.; 14, 21, 28, etc.). In contrast, in the phenomenon ofretrieval-induced forgetting (RIF; M. C. Anderson, Bjork, &; Bjork, 1994), it is suggested that operand multiples ought to be suppressed with practice. Participants (N=72) performed 40 blocks of practice trials in which they generated answers to a subset of simple multiplication problems. We then measured response times and errors in a true—false product verification task. Both true and related false equations with practiced operand multiples as presented products were solved relatively poorly in the verification task. In agreement with RIF, this suggests that operand multiples were suppressed, rather than strengthened, during the practice phase.     

Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity

We examined the effects of retrieval practice for students who varied in working memory capacity as a function of the lag between study of material and its initial test, whether or not feedback was given after the test, and the retention interval of the final test. We sought to determine whether a blend of these conditions exists that maximises benefits from retrieval practice for lower and higher working memory capacity students. College students learned general knowledge facts and then restudied the facts or were tested on them (with or without feedback) at lags of 0–9 intervening items. Final cued recall performance was better for tested items than for restudied items after both 10 minutes and 2 days, particularly for longer study–test lags. Furthermore, on the 2-day delayed test the benefits from retrieval practice with feedback were significantly greater for students with lower working memory capacity than for students with higher working memory capacity (r?=??.42). Retrieval practice may be an especially effective learning strategy for lower ability students.