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.     

提取诱发遗忘：项目强度与测试顺序的影响

提取诱发遗忘是指对先前学过的部分材料进行提取练习会使与练习材料相关的其它材料发生遗忘。目前该现象存在抑制与非抑制理论之争。本研究以64名大学生为被试,通过考察项目强度和测试顺序对提取诱发遗忘的影响,对上述争论进行了探讨。结果表明：（1）只有高强度项目才会引发提取诱发遗忘;（2）当控制由测试顺序所产生的输出干扰效应后,高强度项目仍然会引发提取诱发遗忘。本研究结果支持了提取诱发遗忘的抑制理论。     

The role of exemplar typicality and encoding strategies in category retrieval-induced forgetting

Selective retrieval practice of category exemplars often impairs the recall of related items, a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). In Experiment 1 the role of item typicality (high, low) and presentation format of category exemplars (random, grouped) were analysed, while in Experiment 2 two encoding strategies (inter and intracategory) to modulate RIF were tested. Exemplar typicality was the critical factor underlying RIF. Competition during retrieval practice rendered RIF in the typical exemplars, but RIF did not appear when the exemplars were low typicality. The greater impairment of strong exemplars is in line with the inhibitory account of RIF and the notion of interference dependence. Inhibition appeared with random and grouped presentations suggesting that presentation format of the exemplars is not a critical factor in modulating RIF in a category-cued recall task. Distinctive processing instructions using sentences that connected items from different categories (intercategory strategy) and integration instructions by using size to organise the exemplars within categories (intracategory strategy) easily avoided competition and the need of inhibition processes in recall.     

The subjective experience of retrieval-induced forgetting

The objective was to examine whether the lower accessibility of studied items (Rp?) that follows retrieval practice with studied items from the same category (Rp+; retrieval-induced forgetting) is correctly monitored by our cognitive system. If monitored, lower confidence for Rp? items would be expected which, in turn, would allow the control of the retrieval-induced forgetting through the report option. In Experiment 1 the standard retrieval-practice paradigm with categorised word lists was followed by a recognition test with confidence rating and the option to report or withhold the answer. Accuracy showed retrieval-induced forgetting, but there were no differences in confidence. The report option did not affect retrieval-induced forgetting. The confidence–accuracy dissociation could be due to a correct monitoring of the retrieval-induced forgetting joined with a factor that incorrectly increases confidence for Rp? items. Familiarity with the practised category was proposed as this factor and tested in Experiment 2. Despite presenting the categories more times during the retrieval-practice phase to increase their familiarity, confidence ratings were unaffected. In conclusion, this research suggests that retrieval-induced forgetting was not monitored, giving rise to a confidence–accuracy dissociation.     

Providing corrective feedback during retrieval practice does not increase retrieval-induced forgetting

Recalling a subset of studied materials can impair subsequent retrieval of related, nontested materials. In two experiments, we examined the influence of providing corrective feedback (no feedback, immediate feedback, delayed feedback) during retrieval practice on this retrieval-induced forgetting effect. Performance was assessed with category cued recall (e.g., recall all exemplars studied under Weather), category-and-stem cued recall (e.g., Weather–B___), and recognition. We report a dissociation between the effects of feedback on memory of the tested materials and the nontested materials. Whereas providing immediate or delayed feedback (compared to no feedback) improved recall and recognition of the tested items, it had no influence on retrieval-induced forgetting. These results are consistent with the inhibition account of retrieval-induced forgetting. From an applied perspective, this finding is encouraging for students and educators who use testing to foster learning.     

Is retrieval success a necessary condition for retrieval-induced forgetting?

When information is retrieved from memory, it becomes more recallable than it would have been otherwise. Other information associated with the same cue or configuration of cues, however, becomes less recallable. Such retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, Bjork, &; Bjork, 1994) appears to reflect the suppression of competing nontarget information, with this suppression facilitating the selection of target information. But is success at such selection a necessary condition for retrieval-induced forgetting? Using a procedure in which some cues posed an impossible retrieval task for participants, we report evidence that the attempt to retrieve, even if unsuccessful, can produce retrieval-induced forgetting. This finding, we believe, supports and refines a suppression/inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting.     

Retrieval-induced forgetting of negative stimuli: The role of emotional intensity

Repeatedly retrieving a subset of previously studied items can cause forgetting of related non-retrieved material. We examined whether such retrieval-induced forgetting holds also for negative material. Participants studied neutral and negative stimuli and then repeatedly retrieved a subset of the neutral material. Later, a recall test was conducted in which participants were asked to recall all previously studied items. On average, retrieval practice on the neutral items caused the same amount of forgetting for neutral and negative items, indicating that the emotionality of material does not affect retrieval-induced forgetting. More detailed analysis, however, revealed that the forgetting of negative items decreased with both the emotional intensity of a negative item and the dispositional negative affectivity of a participant. The decreases in retrieval-induced forgetting may have been driven by item-specific processing of material, which is known to be enhanced for highly negative stimuli and participants high in dispositional negative affectivity and to reduce or even eliminate retrieval-induced forgetting.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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-induced forgetting in implicit memory tests: The role of test awareness

Retrieval practice with particular items in memory may result in decreased recall of different, semantically related, items. This retrieval-induced forgetting effect has been demonstrated in studies using explicit memory tests. Anderson and Spellman (1995) have attributed retrieval-induced forgetting to inhibitory mechanisms. This hypothesis predicts similar effects in implicit memory tasks. In our first experiment, using Anderson and Spellman’s original paradigm, retrieval-induced forgetting was found using an explicit memory test with independent extralist retrieval cues. In our second experiment, using the same materials, retrieval-induced forgetting was also found using an implicit memory test with independent extralist retrieval cues, but only for participants who were aware of the relationship between the study and practice phase on the one hand, and the test phase of the experiment on the other. Thus, test awareness seems to mediate retrieval-induced forgetting in implicit memory tasks.     

Feedback increases benefits but not costs of retrieval practice: Retrieval-induced forgetting is strength independent

We examined how the provision of feedback affected two separate effects of retrieval practice: strengthening of practiced information and forgetting of related, unpracticed information. Feedback substantially increased recall of retrieval-practiced items. This unsurprising result shows once again that restudy opportunities boost the benefits of testing. In contrast, retrieval-induced forgetting was unaffected by the manipulation and occurred in equal size with or without feedback. These findings demonstrate strength independence of retrieval-induced forgetting and thus support a theoretical account assuming that an inhibitory mechanism causes retrieval-induced forgetting. According to this theory, inhibition resolves competition that arises during retrieval attempts but is unrelated to the consequences of retrieval practice concerning practiced items. The present results match these assumptions and contradict the theoretical alternative that blocking by strengthened information might explain retrieval-induced forgetting. We discuss our findings against the background of previous studies.     

定向遗忘中提取抑制的机制：成功提取引起抑制

两个实验采用无关材料考察了字表方式下提取诱发遗忘解释定向遗忘中提取抑制的可能性。在实验中,学习完两个字表后,对字表2 进行不同次数（0、1、3次）的提取练习以考察是否会增强定向遗忘效应以及定向遗忘效应是否随着提取练习次数的增加而增强。实验一中,字表2提取练习是要求被试回忆字表2项目,不给予线索提示。在实验二中,采用词干补笔测验的形式对字表2进行提取练习,词干补笔测验保证了对字表2项目的成功提取。研究结果发现,只有在实验二中对字表2的成功提取练习增强了定向遗忘效应,从而表明成功提取可以解释定向遗忘中的提取抑制     

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 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 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.     

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.