Most directed forgetting in pigeons can be attributed to the absence of reinforcement on forget trials during training or to other procedural artifacts.

In research on directed forgetting in pigeons using delayed matching procedures, remember cues, presented in the delay interval between sample and comparisons, have been followed by comparisons (i.e., a memory test), whereas forget cues have been followed by one of a number of different sample-independent events. The source of directed forgetting in delayed matching to sample in pigeons was examined in a 2 x 2 design by independently manipulating whether or not forget-cue trials in training ended with reinforcement and whether or not forget-cue trials in training included a simultaneous discrimination (involving stimuli other than those used in the matching task). Results were consistent with the hypothesis that reinforced responding following forget cues is sufficient to eliminate performance deficits on forget-cue probe trials. Only when reinforcement was omitted on forget-cue trials in training (whether a discrimination was required or not) was there a decrement in accuracy on forget-cue probe trials. When reinforcement is present, however, the pattern of responding established during and following a forget cue in training may also play a role in the directed forgetting effect. These findings support the view that much of the evidence for directed forgetting using matching procedures may result from motivational and behavioral artifacts rather than the loss of memory.     

Directed forgetting of a single item

In two experiments, we investigated directed forgetting of a single item. We presented participants with two phone numbers to remember and instructed half of the participants to forget the first phone number. The first number was either learned on a single trial (Experiment 1) or on three trials (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, there was evidence of directed forgetting as a result of differential encoding; the forget instruction affected recall and recognition for both phone numbers. In Experiment 2, the evidence favored differential rehearsal because the forget instruction affected recall but not recognition. These results indicate that instructions to forget can affect memory of single items.     

Selective cues to forget can fail to cause forgetting

Recent research has found that individuals can selectively forget a subset of items through directed forgetting. The goal of the present study was to replicate this selective directed forgetting effect and elucidate its underlying mechanisms. Unfortunately, results from four experiments failed to find any evidence of selective directed forgetting. Participants failed to forget any items when instructed to forget a subset of items from a first list before learning a second list. Participants were only successful in forgetting items from the first list when they were instructed to forget all items from the first list before learning the second list.     

Stimulus control of information processing in pigeon short-term memory

Six pigeons were trained initially on a delayed successive matching-to-sample task using red and green fields as sample and test stimuli. Following acquisition, each sample was followed either by a vertical line (“remember” cue), which indicated that sample memory would be tested, or by a horizontal line (“forget” cue), which indicated that sample memory would not be tested. During the experiments, sample memory on forget trials was tested occasionally. A series of five experiments revealed: (a) better retention on remember trials than on forget trials, (b) increased effectiveness of a forget cue when it followed closely sample offset, (c) more rapid forgetting over a retention interval ranging from 3 to 6 sec on forget trials than on remember trials, (d) a “cancellation” effect in which a remember cue which followed immediately the offset of a forget cue attenuated markedly the effectiveness of the forget cue, and (e) an “insulation” effect in which the effectiveness of a forget cue was reduced considerably when presented after a remember cue. It was concluded that pigeons actively process or rehearse the sample memory during the retention interval.     

Transfer of directed-forgetting cues across discrimination tasks with pigeons

Directed forgetting is shown as impaired performance on a memory test following an instruction that the presented items will not be tested. Experiments utilizing the delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) task have demonstrated that this ability to actively control memory is present in animals; however, no study has yet confirmed that cues to forget established in one DMTS discrimination will successfully transfer to other discriminations. Lacking such evidence, it is not clear whether forgetting cues act as “higher level” task instructions or are represented more simply, perhaps as part of a sample-specific sequence of events. The present study revealed good transfer of the forget cue function in pigeons after prior training with the forget cues in a separate discrimination. This finding is discussed in relation to analogous experiments on occasion setting, in which training within more than one discriminative context has been shown to be critical to the transfer of a conditional relation.     

The role of forget-cue salience in list-method directed forgetting

Research suggests that manipulating the wording of the forget cue in list-method directed forgetting affects the magnitude of directed forgetting both in younger children (Aslan, Staudigl, Samenieh, & Bauml, in press) and in older adults (Sahakyan, Delaney, & Goodmon, 2008). This occurs when the forget cue overemphasises the importance of forgetting in the current context. The present experiment investigated whether de-emphasising forgetting affected the magnitude of list-method directed forgetting in college adults. Some participants received overt forget cues that explicitly instructed them to forget earlier studied items, whereas others received covert forget cues that implied forgetting by emphasising selective remembering (e.g., "you will only need to remember some of the items"). Results indicated equivalent directed forgetting for both types of cues. However, regardless of the type of cue received, participants who reported using specific forgetting strategies in response to the forget cue showed directed forgetting, whereas those that reported doing nothing did not show any effects. The results underscore that successful directed forgetting requires engagement of controlled processes.     

Directed forgetting of autobiographical events

Two diary experiments demonstrated directed forgetting (DF) of autobiographical events, previously observed only for less complex memory items. Using a 2-week diary paradigm, we compared recall between a group of participants who were directed to forget Week 1 memories (forget group) and a group who did not receive a forget instruction (remember group). In Experiment 1, the forget group remembered fewer items from Week 1 than did the remember group. The effect was observed for negative and positive valence events, as well as for high and low emotional intensity events. The effect was replicated in Experiment 2 despite a memorable holiday (Valentine's Day) that occurred during the manipulation week. Forget participants remembered fewer low emotional intensity items in Experiment 2. We conclude that intentional forgetting is a plausible explanation for the loss of some autobiographical memories.     

有意遗忘的脑机制

有意遗忘是指个体主动忘记无用和过时的信息,本质是记忆的主动抑制,包括定向遗忘和压抑遗忘。在定向遗忘中,记忆抑制既发生在编码阶段也发生在提取阶段,脑机制研究支持编码抑制理论和提取抑制理论;在压抑遗忘中,think和No-think所激活的脑区不同,No-think引起前额区域的激活增强和海马的激活减弱。未来应开展定向遗忘和压抑遗忘的脑机制差异研究,注重记忆抑制和其他心理活动抑制之间的差异研究,关注创伤个体的有意遗忘研究,拓展记忆控制神经网络的可塑性研究。     

Memory strategies used by young normal and retarded children in a directed forgetting paradigm

Two experiments were reported investigating the possibility that normal children (6- to 7-years old) and retarded children (9- to 10-years old) equated for immediate memory performance may not use effective strategies to eliminate interference from irrelevant information in memory. In both experiments a directed forgetting paradigm was used in which the children were presented with two sets of four pictures, and recalled only one set on each trial. On some trials, there was a cue to forget the first four and to remember only the last four pictures. In the first experiment both groups adopted a passive-active strategy in which the to-be-remembered items were processed actively only after a forget cue. Experiment 2 replicated this pattern of results. The use of sophisticated directed forgetting strategies seemed to be beyond the immediate abilities of these children. Two possible interpretations of the passive-active strategy were offered: (a) The strategy was an attempt to cope with the presence of occasionally irrelevant information and (b) The strategy was an attempt to cope with memory overload.     

自我参照对情绪性记忆定向遗忘的影响

关于自我参照效应的研究大多从信息编码角度考察自我参照的加工优势, 但作为记忆过程的另一重要方面, 自我参照对遗忘影响的研究较少。遗忘自身经历的情绪性记忆是日常生活中的常见现象。研究采用项目法定向遗忘范式(item-method directed forgetting)考察了自我参照对情绪性记忆定向遗忘的影响。实验一和实验二的结果都表明参照方式会影响定向遗忘：自我参照条件下的材料会发生定向遗忘; 而他人参照条件下的材料不会发生定向遗忘, 两种参照方式下材料间区辨性的不同是导致这一现象的原因。此外, 实验二采用回忆测试发现：自我参照对不同效价的情绪性记忆定向遗忘产生了不同影响, 而自我提升(self-enhancement)动机在其中起着重要的调节作用。     

“To‐be‐forgotten” statements become less true: Memory processes involved in selection and forgetting lead to truthfulness changes of ambiguous sentences

What happens when people try to forget something? What are the consequences of instructing people to intentionally forget a sentence? Recent studies employing the item‐method directed forgetting paradigm have shown that to‐be‐forgotten (TBF) items are, in a subsequent task, emotionally devaluated relative to to‐be‐remembered (TBR) items, an aftereffect of memory selection (Vivas, Marful, Panagiotidou & Bajo, 2016). As such, distractor devaluation by attentional selection generalizes to memory selection. In this study, we use the item‐method directed forgetting paradigm to test the effects of memory selection and inhibition on truth judgments of ambiguous sentences. We expected the relative standing of an item in the task (i.e., whether it was instructed to be remembered or forgotten) to affect the truthfulness value of that item, making TBF items less valid/truthful than TBR items. As predicted, ambiguous sentences associated with a “Forget” cue were subsequently judged as less true than sentences associated with a “Remember” cue, suggesting that instructions to intentionally forget a statement can produce changes in the validity/truthfulness of that statement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to show an influence of memory processes involved in selection and forgetting on the perceived truthfulness of sentences.     

The role of forget-cue salience in list-method directed forgetting

Research suggests that manipulating the wording of the forget cue in list-method directed forgetting affects the magnitude of directed forgetting both in younger children (Aslan, Staudigl, Samenieh, & Bauml, in press) and in older adults (Sahakyan, Delaney, & Goodmon, 2008). This occurs when the forget cue overemphasises the importance of forgetting in the current context. The present experiment investigated whether de-emphasising forgetting affected the magnitude of list-method directed forgetting in college adults. Some participants received overt forget cues that explicitly instructed them to forget earlier studied items, whereas others received covert forget cues that implied forgetting by emphasising selective remembering (e.g., “you will only need to remember some of the items”). Results indicated equivalent directed forgetting for both types of cues. However, regardless of the type of cue received, participants who reported using specific forgetting strategies in response to the forget cue showed directed forgetting, whereas those that reported doing nothing did not show any effects. The results underscore that successful directed forgetting requires engagement of controlled processes.     

Forgetting is effortful: Evidence from reaction time probes in an item-method directed forgetting task

Reaction time (RT) was measured in response to visual detection probes embedded within an item-method directed forgetting paradigm. In Experiment 1, study words were presented individually followed by an instruction to remember (R) or forget (F). Probes were presented at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 1,400, 1,800, or 2,600 msec in relation to the study word or memory instruction. After the study trials, a yes-no recognition task measured retention of R and F words. Experiment 2 added a no-word control condition and no-probe catch trials. In both experiments, post-F probe RTs were longer than post-R probe RTs at early SOAs. Confirming that participants attended to the memory instructions, there was a significant directed forgetting effect, with greater recognition of R than of F words. These findings contradict the view that directed forgetting in the item-method paradigm is due to the passive decay of nonrehearsed F items; instead, they are consistent with the view that intentional forgetting in an item-method paradigm occurs via the operation of an active, potentially inhibitory, cognitive process.     

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.     

Directed forgetting in the list method affects recognition memory for source

The effects of list-method directed forgetting on recognition memory were explored. In Experiment 1 (N = 40), observers were instructed to remember words and their type-cases; in Experiment 2 (N = 80), the instruction was to remember words and their colours. Two lists of 10 words were presented; after the first list, half of the observers (forget) were instructed to forget that list, and the other half (remember) were not given the forget instruction. Recognition of items (words) as well as source (encoding list + case/colour) was measured for forget and remember observers. The forget instruction affected case/colour memory more consistently than item and list memory; a multinomial analysis indicated that source information was affected by the forget instructions. The results indicated that recognition of source information may be a more sensitive indicator of forgetting than recognition of items.     

Metacognition influences item-method directed forgetting

In 4 experiments, we examined whether metacognitive beliefs about item memorability influence item-method directed forgetting. In Experiment 1, participants studied loud and quiet items, which were subsequently cued as to-be-remembered (TBR) or to-be-forgotten (TBF). Typically, the volume of stimuli does not influence recall, although loud items are judged as more memorable than quiet items (Rhodes & Castel, 2009). In contrast, we found a recall advantage for loud items in directed forgetting, although this was observed for TBR items but not TBF items. The loud item advantage disappeared in Experiment 2, when we eliminated all TBF trials and instead inserted additional trials during which participants could engage in extra rehearsal of earlier presented items. In Experiments 3 and 4, a recall advantage for loud items was observed again when items were assigned a mixture of positive and negative values, but it did not emerge when items were assigned graded positive values. Overall, the results showed that the recall advantage for loud items emerges only in response to the need to forget some items. We propose 2 mechanisms to account for these results-either participants select to rehearse loud items as a controlled strategy that allows them to forget some items, or they have an unconscious preference for loud items that emerges only in response to the need to forget. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Directed forgetting in young children: Evidence for a production deficiency

When people are cued to forget a previously studied list of items and to learn a new list instead, such cuing typically leads to forgetting of the first list and to memory enhancement of the second. In two experiments, we examined such listwise directed forgetting in children (and adults), using a forget cue that placed either high emphasis or low emphasis on the need to forget. In the low-emphasis condition, (adult-like) List 1 forgetting was present in fourth graders, but not in first graders (and kindergartners); in contrast, in the high-emphasis condition, (adult-like) List 1 forgetting was present from first grade on. Only fourth graders showed (adult-like) List 2 enhancement, regardless of task instruction. The finding that first graders showed List 1 forgetting only in the high-emphasis condition points to a production deficiency in first graders’ directed forgetting, suggesting that the children are capable of intentional forgetting but fail to do so spontaneously. The finding that first graders showed List 1 forgetting without List 2 enhancement suggests that the two directed-forgetting effects are mediated by different processes with different developmental trajectories.     

Item method directed forgetting diminishes false memory

Directed forgetting may reduce DRM false memory illusion by interfering with meaning processing. Participants were presented with a list composed of six 10-word semantically associated sub-lists, and they were either (a) asked to remember all list items of (b) asked to remember all associates from sub-lists and to forget all associates from other sub-lists. All participants were requested to recall and recognise list items. Although directed forgetting effects have been previously reported only for true responses in the DRM paradigm with the list method, we also found directed forgetting for false responses with the item method. Such forgetting instructions reduced both verbatim and meaning processing, decreasing both the intrusion and the false alarm rate. These results are consistent with two-process explanations of DRM false memories, such as fuzzy-trace theory, and add to our understanding of false memory editing.     

Directed forgetting of negative performed actions is difficult: A behavioural study

Strong evidence suggests that both performing actions and emotional stimuli can enhance memory by capturing attention. However, the synergetic effect of the two factors on directed forgetting has not been assessed. In this study, we used an item-method directed forgetting paradigm to examine the forgetting of emotional materials depending on whether actions were performed. The results showed that action performance influenced the directed forgetting of emotional words. Specifically, when actions were performed there was a directed forgetting effect for neutral and positive words but not for negative words. In comparison, for verbal tasks, directed forgetting was observed for all words. The elaborative encoding prior to the remember/forget instructions and the influence of negative emotion on attentional inhibition after the presentation of the instructions together suggest that it is more difficult to intentionally forget negative performed actions.     

定向遗忘的编码加工机制

有目的的遗忘(定向遗忘)需要耗费认知努力吗?有研究发现, 定向遗忘可能是被动衰减的结果, 即F项目(需要遗忘的项目)未获得有效复述是选择性复述了R项目(需要记住的项目)造成的, 这一加工过程不需要认知努力; 但也有研究表明, 定向遗忘过程可能是遗忘线索诱发的对记忆加工的主动抑制, 需要耗费认知努力, 脑认知研究中发现的前额叶ERPs成分为这一机制提供了证据。还有一种观点认为, 定向遗忘编码过程可能同时包含主动抑制与被动衰减, 但是尚不清楚两种加工机制相互作用的方式。为进一步澄清定向遗忘编码阶段的认知机制, 未来研究需要将非认知因素纳入考察, 并关注不同人群的定向遗忘特征, 在此基础上尝试解决理论争议。