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.     

No retrieval-induced forgetting using item-specific independent cues: evidence against a general inhibitory account

Retrieval practice with particular items from memory can impair the recall of related items on a later memory test. This retrieval-induced forgetting effect has been ascribed to inhibitory processes (M. C. Anderson & B. A. Spellman, 1995). A critical finding that distinguishes inhibitory from interference explanations is that forgetting is found with independent (or extralist) cues. In 4 experiments, the authors tested whether the forgetting effect is cue-independent. Forgetting was investigated for both studied and unstudied semantically related items. Retrieval-induced forgetting was not found using item-specific independent cues for either studied or unstudied items. However, forgetting was found for both item types when studied categories were used as cues. These results are not in line with a general inhibitory account, because this account predicts retrieval-induced forgetting with independent cues. Interference and context-specific inhibition are discussed as possible explanations for the data.     

On the durability of retrieval-induced forgetting

Information retrieved from memory becomes more recallable in the future than it would have been otherwise. Competing information associated with the same cues, however, tends to become less recallable, at least for a while. Whether the latter effect—referred to as retrieval-induced forgetting—is persistent, or only transient, is the question that motivated the present research. Participants studied category-exemplar pairs, practised retrieving other exemplars of half the categories, and, finally, were tested for their ability to recall initially studied exemplars after a 5-min delay (half the items) and after 1 week (the remaining items). In addition, for half the categories, opportunities to restudy the exemplars were provided between cycles of retrieval practice. The results demonstrate that retrieval-induced forgetting can persist for as long as a week, but that such forgetting is eliminated when participants are intermittently reexposed to unpractised items during retrieval practice.     

A limit on retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieving some members of a memory set impairs later recall of semantically related but not unrelated members (M. C. Anderson, R. A. Bjork, & E. L. Bjork, 1994; M. C. Anderson & B. A. Spellman, 1995). The authors investigated whether this retrieval-induced forgetting effect would generalize to testing procedures other than category-cued recall. Although the authors demonstrated a retrieval-induced forgetting effect using a category-cued recall task, they failed to show retrieval-induced forgetting on several different memory tests that used item-specific cues, including a category-plus-stem-cued recall test, a category-plus-fragment-cued recall test, a fragment-cued recall test, and a fragment completion task.     

提取引起的遗忘的认知机制

提取引起的遗忘(RIF)指提取某个信息导致对其它相关信息的遗忘,揭示其内在机制是记忆和遗忘领域的一个重要的研究课题。近20年来,各路研究者分别从干扰理论、抑制理论或情境依赖说出发,试图找到引发RIF的唯一的认知机制。基于对有关RIF的认知机制的实证研究的系统分析,可以发现三个理论均有一定的支持证据,因此导致RIF的原因可能包括抑制、干扰和情境的改变等三个方面。今后该领域可结合多种技术手段对这一多元论观点进行直接的检验。     

Incidental retrieval-induced forgetting of location information

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) has been studied with different types of tests and materials. However, RIF has always been tested on the items' central features, and there is no information on whether inhibition also extends to peripheral features of the events in which the items are embedded. In two experiments, we specifically tested the presence of RIF in a task in which recall of peripheral information was required. After a standard retrieval practice task oriented to item identity, participants were cued with colors (Exp. 1) or with the items themselves (Exp. 2) and asked to recall the screen locations where the items had been displayed during the study phase. RIF for locations was observed after retrieval practice, an effect that was not present when participants were asked to read instead of retrieving the items. Our findings provide evidence that peripheral location information associated with an item during study can be also inhibited when the retrieval conditions promote the inhibition of more central, item identity information.     

When stereotype knowledge prevents retrieval-induced forgetting

In the present study, we examined the effects of stereotypes and the typicality of traits in retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). The participants in the experiment practiced half of the high-typicality, low-typicality or control traits associated with the name of a stereotype (athlete, scientist) or with the name of a person (Mikel, Jon). With the person name the high-typicality, low-typicality or control traits produced no evidence of stereotype activation. The traits were processed as independent features and generated RIF both immediately and at a one-week interval. Stereotype activation during encoding facilitated the integration of high-typicality traits, avoiding RIF in immediate and one-week recall. Moreover, both high-typicality and low-typicality traits benefited from stereotypes in one-week recognition. These findings show that previous knowledge contributes to integrate stereotypic traits that would otherwise compete for retrieval, thus producing RIF.     

Effect of circadian rhythms on retrieval-induced forgetting

This study investigated the effects of natural circadian rhythms on retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF; Anderson et al. in J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20:1063–1087, 1994). Individuals tested at optimal times (i.e., morning persons tested in the morning and evening persons tested in the evening) showed a significantly greater RIF effect than individuals tested at non-optimal times (i.e., morning persons tested in the evening and evening persons tested in the morning). Thus, the limited quantity of resources available to allocate in the inhibitory activity during non-optimal times produced a significant decrement in RIF. These findings are compatible with the inhibitory account of RIF and with the notion of a resource-demanding process underlying this memory phenomenon.     

A neural network model of retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) refers to the finding that retrieving a memory can impair subsequent recall of related memories. Here, the authors present a new model of how the brain gives rise to RIF in both semantic and episodic memory. The core of the model is a recently developed neural network learning algorithm that leverages regular oscillations in feedback inhibition to strengthen weak parts of target memories and to weaken competing memories. The authors use the model to address several puzzling findings relating to RIF, including why retrieval practice leads to more forgetting than simply presenting the target item, how RIF is affected by the strength of competing memories and the strength of the target (to-be-retrieved) memory, and why RIF sometimes generalizes to independent cues and sometimes does not. For all of these questions, the authors show that the model can account for existing results, and they generate novel predictions regarding boundary conditions on these results.     

The influence of distinctive processing on retrieval-induced forgetting

Recall of a portion of a previously experienced list benefits subsequent recall of that portion of the list but leads to poorer recall of nonpracticed items from the same set (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). One explanation for this retrieval-induced forgetting is that during practice of part of a set, the non-practiced items compete for recall and are suppressed; this suppression process inhibits later recall of the nonpracticed items. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the relationship between distinctive processing of the original set and retrieval-induced forgetting, on the assumption that distinctive processing reduces response competition. In the first experiment, distinctive processing induced by difference judgments among the studied items did reduce forgetting relative to a standard encoding task and a similarity judgment task. In fact, the difference judgment task completely eliminated retrieval-induced forgetting. In the second experiment, the similarity judgment task was analyzed in relation to a task assumed to foster associative integration (Anderson & McCulloch, 1999). Even though the similarity judgment met the requirements for associative integration, retrieval-induced forgetting persisted following similarity judgment. The results are consistent with the view that distinctive processing benefits memory within an organizational context (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993; Smith & Hunt, in press).     

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.     

提取诱发遗忘中的情绪记忆权衡效应

情绪记忆的提取诱发遗忘研究是近年来记忆研究领域的热点问题,但是尚无一致的结果。在现实生活中,我们所面临的情绪事件十分复杂,不仅包含核心的情绪信息,还包括边缘非情绪信息,研究已发现,人们对于这些复杂情绪事件不同成分的记忆效果也不是完全相同的。本研究通过2个实验分别探讨提取练习整张复杂情绪图片和提取练习复杂情绪图片的背景成分时的提取诱发遗忘现象。结果表明:(1)无论提取练习完整信息还是相关的边缘信息,均在提取诱发遗忘中存在显著的情绪记忆权衡效应;(2)消极情绪项目像中性项目一样也能产生提取诱发遗忘效应;(3)不论提取图片的完整信息还是背景信息,都仅在中心项目上表现出提取诱发遗忘,边缘背景没有出现提取诱发遗忘。     

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.     

Individual differences in working memory capacity predict retrieval-induced forgetting

Selectively retrieving a subset of previously studied information enhances memory for the retrieved information but causes forgetting of related, nonretrieved information. Such retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) has often been attributed to inhibitory executive-control processes that supposedly suppress the nonretrieved items' memory representation. Here, we examined the role of working memory capacity (WMC) in young adults' RIF. WMC was assessed by means of the operation span task. Results revealed a positive relationship between WMC and RIF, with high-WMC individuals showing more RIF than low-WMC individuals. In contrast, individuals showed enhanced memory for retrieved information regardless of WMC. The results are consistent with previous individual-differences work that suggests a close link between WMC and inhibitory efficiency. In particular, the finding supports the inhibitory executive-control account of RIF.     

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.     

The roles of delay and retroactive interference in retrieval-induced forgetting

When subjects study items from different categories and then repeatedly retrieve some of the items from some of the categories, retrieval practice typically improves recall of the practiced items but impairs recall of related but unpracticed items, relative to control items from unpracticed categories. Here, we report the results of three experiments, in which we examined practiced and unpracticed items’ delay-induced forgetting (Exp. 1) and their susceptibility to retroactive interference (Exps. 2 and 3). Control items showed the expected memory impairment after longer delay between practice and test and in the presence of retroactive interference. In contrast, both the practiced and the related unpracticed items showed hardly any forgetting under these conditions. The findings are consistent with the results from recent testing-effect studies, which have reported reduced delay-induced forgetting and reduced susceptibility to interference for retrieval-practiced items, and generalize the results to related unpracticed items. The findings are discussed with respect to the inhibitory and noninhibitory accounts of retrieval-induced forgetting, as well as the possible role of selective segregation processes, which may be induced by retrieval practice.     

The relationship between retrieval-induced forgetting, anxiety, and personality

Abstract Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) refers to the finding that the retrieval of a memory trace suppresses the retrieval of rival memory traces, and there is evidence that RIF reflects the effects of cognitive inhibition. The Attentional Control Theory (ACT) postulates that cognitive inhibition will be impaired by a high level of state anxiety, but the effect of anxiety on RIF has not previously been investigated. A sample of 116 participants were tested on the RIF procedure, and were also administered the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory and the Big Five Personality Inventory. The results indicated a significant negative correlation between RIF scores and state anxiety, and a significant positive correlation between RIF scores and extraversion. However, a multiple regression analysis identified extraversion as the main predictor of RIF performance. None of the other personality factors correlated with RIF scores. These findings are consistent with the predictions of the ACT.