Cue delay and the role of rehearsal in directed forgetting.

Wetzel, Chris; Hunt, Richard E.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.3.2.233

Cited by 35 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, memory is impaired for F words on certain implicit memory tests, such as word-fragment and word-stem completion (MacLeod, 1989). The time and resources available for post-cue encoding had a larger effect on R than on F words (e.g., Davis & Okada, 1971;Macleod, 1989;Wetzel & Hunt, 1977). Based on these findings, several studies suggest that the item method, which differs from the list method, promotes selective rehearsal favoring the R words (Basden & Basden, 1998;Basden, Basden & Gargano, 1993;MacLeod 1999;Wilson & Kipp, 1998).…”

Section: One Of the Methods Used To Examine Intentional Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and Benefits in Item-Method Directed Forgetting: Differential Effects of Encoding and Retrieval

Lee

2013

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined how encoding and retrieval factors affected directed forgetting costs and benefits in an item-method procedure. Experiment 1 used a typical item-method procedure and revealed a levels-of-processing effect in overall recall. However, the deep encoding condition showed a smaller directed forgetting effect than the shallow encoding conditions. More importantly, "remember" (R) words were selectively rehearsed as indicated by greater recall from the primacy portion of the list and more apt to be recalled before "forget" (F) words. Experiment 2 showed that a deep encoding operation reduced directed forgetting costs and that directed forgetting benefits occurred only when R words were recalled before F words. These findings supported the hypotheses that encoding manipulation affected directed forgetting costs and that directed forgetting benefits were associated with output order bias. Results were discussed in terms of mechanisms that produce item-method directed forgetting.

show abstract

Section: One Of the Methods Used To Examine Intentional Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and Benefits in Item-Method Directed Forgetting: Differential Effects of Encoding and Retrieval

Lee

2013

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, item-method directed forgetting has been explained by selective rehearsal at encoding (e.g., Basden, Basden, & Gargano, 1993;Gottlob, Golding, & Hauselt, 2006;MacLeod, 1999;Wetzel & Hunt, 1977). The notion is that each word is held in working memory via maintenance rehearsal until the memory instruction is received (e.g., Woodward, Bjork, & Jongeward, 1973).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Taylor

Fawcett

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/ attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an itemmethod paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.

show abstract

“…Wetzel and Hunt (1977) varied the delay of the cue and the cue duration (from 1 to 12 s) and observed effects of both durations on memory for R and F items, with the benefits of cue duration being greater for R than F items. Their recall and recognition results were consistent with the selective rehearsal hypothesis, but their results for recognition are difficult to interpret because the recognition test followed both immediate and final recall tests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The longer we have to forget the more we remember: The ironic effect of postcue duration in item-based directed forgetting.

Bancroft¹,

Hockley²,

Farquhar³

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of the duration of remember and forget cues were examined to test the differential rehearsal account of item-based directed forgetting. In Experiments 1 and 2, cues were shown for 300, 600, or 900 ms, and a directed forgetting effect (better recognition of remember than forget items) was found at each duration. In addition, recognition of both remember and forget items increased with cue duration. These 2 effects did not interact. The results of Experiment 2 further showed that memory for the cue associated with the study items increased with cue duration as well. The results of Experiment 1 were replicated in Experiment 3 for cue durations of 1, 2, and 3 s. Finally, a similar pattern of results was found for cue durations of 2, 4, and 6 s for associative recognition of random word pairs. If subjects cannot immediately terminate the processing of forget items, the lingering processing of these items is as beneficial as the continued processing of remember items. Alternatively, subjects may use inefficient or counterproductive strategies that ironically improve memory for the information they wish to forget.

show abstract

Cue delay and the role of rehearsal in directed forgetting.

Cited by 35 publications

References 18 publications

Costs and Benefits in Item-Method Directed Forgetting: Differential Effects of Encoding and Retrieval

Costs and Benefits in Item-Method Directed Forgetting: Differential Effects of Encoding and Retrieval

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

The longer we have to forget the more we remember: The ironic effect of postcue duration in item-based directed forgetting.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About