Active Forgetting: Evidence for Functional Inhibition as a Source of Memory Failure

Anderson, Michael C.

doi:10.4324/9780203725276-9

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their results converge with literature from various other groups proposing that interference control in WM involves the suppression of irrelevant memory representations (e.g., Anderson, 2001;Bjork, 1989;Conway & Engle, 1994;Engle, 1996;Hasher et al, 1999;Hasher et al, 2007;Healey et al, 2010;Zacks et al, 1996). The question arises whether these studies and the studies by Ecker and colleagues all investigated the same process, just with different interpretations; in other words, it is unclear whether Ecker et al's proposed removal process is in fact an inhibitory process.…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

Interference Control in Working Memory

Singh¹,

Ecker²,

Gignac³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Working memory (WM) is a limited-capacity system requiring an interference-control process to avoid being cluttered from irrelevant information. Recently, it has been suggested that this “housekeeping” mechanism can be attributed to an item-wise removal process serving to actively remove irrelevant information from WM. It has been theorized that this active removal process serves to facilitate both WM maintenance in the face of distraction as well as the updating of outdated information. An alternate view, however, is that interference control in WM relies on an inhibitory process that suppresses the activation of distractors against competing, task-relevant representations. This study is the first to assess the extent to which removal and inhibition represent the same cognitive process. One-hundred and thirty-eight undergraduate students from the University of Western Australia (M = 20.42, SD = 3.09) completed a novel removal task battery in addition to an inhibition task battery. Data were analysed using a hybrid path analytic and structural equation model. The modelling found that there was unique variance associated with the removal latent variable, and estimated that only approximately 9 % of the variance in the removal latent variable could be accounted for by the inhibition tasks, providing tentative support that removal should not be considered a process of cognitive inhibition. The findings support previous claims that removal is an independent WM updating process. The findings are also consistent with a class of computational WM models proposing that removal and inhibition operate on different levels.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

Interference Control in Working Memory

Singh¹,

Ecker²,

Gignac³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This question is relevant because some authors have claimed that forgetting of dailylife experiences from the distant past may be an aftereffect of selective retrieval (Anderson 2001;Anderson et al 2004;Wessel and Hauer 2006). Thus, we propose that Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In Experiment 1, we aimed to determine whether equivalent RIF effects could be obtained with materials differing in the relative involvement of semantic and episodic relations. Previous experiments (e.g., Anderson 2001;Anderson et al 1994;Ciranni and Shimamura 1999;Gómez-Ariza et al 2005 have found RIF for semantic, perceptual and episodic materials, but they have used different tests and procedures. We therefore thought it important to show immediate RIF effects for these materials with similar methodological constraints (such as practice schedule or type of final test).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low involvement of preexisting associations makes retrieval-induced forgetting long lasting

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that selective retrieval of episodic memories usually leads to forgetting of related memories that compete for retrieval [a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF)]. However, there are conflicting data regarding the duration of this incidental kind of forgetting. While some studies have found that this forgetting effect disappears within 24 h after selective retrieval, others suggest that it may last for as long as at least a week. In two experiments, we explored whether discrepancies in the durability of RIF may be due to variations in the type of relationships (preexisting vs. novel) that are present between items associated with a given cue. We explored this issue by manipulating the degree of involvement of preexisting/novel associations among competing items as well as the delay between retrieval practice and test (immediate in Experiment 1 and 24-h delay test in Experiment 2). The results suggest that forgetting lasts longer when the degree of preexisting associations among targets and competitors is low.

show abstract

“…In this respect, the memory inhibition effect is decidedly different from motor response inhibition where the effects disappear after about 20 trials (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008). Such a longer-lasting inhibition effect is of course also required if this type of suppression is to play a role in explaining phenomena such as 'motivated forgetting' and recovered memories (Anderson, 2001(Anderson, , 2006Storm et al, 2015).…”

Section: Inhibition-based Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition in Memory

Raaijmakers

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past 20 years, a new approach to forgetting has been proposed, based on the notion of inhibition. According to this view forgetting is partly due to a process of inhibitory control. In this chapter, I review the current status of this account, discussing the evidence that has been proposed as well as the counterarguments that have been made. I show that the paradigms that are likely to generate the best evidence for inhibition are the retrieval induced forgetting paradigm and the think / no-think paradigm. Other paradigms such as directed forgetting and part-list cuing seem to be better explained using other memory principles. I conclude that there is a need for a consistent and preferably formalized model that combines inhibition and competition as principal factors in forgetting.

show abstract

Active Forgetting: Evidence for Functional Inhibition as a Source of Memory Failure

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Interference Control in Working Memory

Interference Control in Working Memory

Low involvement of preexisting associations makes retrieval-induced forgetting long lasting

Inhibition in Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About