Dynamic memory searches: Selective output interference for the memory of facts

Abstract

The benefits of testing on later memory performance are well documented; however, the manner in which testing harms memory performance is less well understood. This research is concerned with the finding that accuracy decreases over the course of testing, a phenomena termed Boutput interference^(OI). OI has primarily been investigated with episodic memory, but there is limited research investigating OI in measures of semantic memory (i.e., knowledge). In the current study, participants were twice tested for their knowledge of factual questions; they received corrective feedback during the first test. No OI was observed during the first test, when participants presumably searched semantic memory to answer the general-knowledge questions. During the second test, OI was observed. Conditional analyses of Test 2 performance revealed that OI was largely isolated to questions answered incorrectly during Test 1. These were questions for which participants needed to rely on recent experience (i.e., the feedback in episodic memory) to respond correctly. One possible explanation is that episodic memory is more susceptible to the sort of interference generated during testing (e.g., gradual changes in context, encoding/updating of items) relative to semantic memory. Alternative explanations are considered.

Evaluating mechanisms of proactive facilitation in cued recall

“…Indeed, the current data reinforce the idea that memory is far more complicated than the outdated notion that learning only occurs during study and recall only occurs during test. There is ample evidence indicating that the encoding of information occurs while testing both to our detriment (e.g., output interference [Annis, Malmberg, Criss, & Shffrin, 2013;Aue, Criss, & Prince, 2015;Koop, Criss, & Malmberg, 2015;Malmberg, Criss, Gangwani, & Shiffrin, 2012]) and to our benefit (e.g., retrievalbased learning [see Karpicke, Lehman, & Aue, 2014 for a recent review]). Additionally, our explanation for proactive facilitation put forth in the previous section suggests that memory retrieval is taking place during the encoding of information.…”

Release from output interference in recognition memory: A test of the attention hypothesis

“…Although OI is often quite substantial in recognition testing, there are cases where OI is absent. For one, recognition tests of semantic memory, in the form of classroom examinations or laboratory studies of general knowledge questions, do not suffer from OI (Aue, Criss, & Prince, 2015). 1 Interleaving semantic memory tasks within a series of recognition tests does not amplify OI beyond what is found from the episodic tasks alone (Annis et al, 2013).…”

“… 1. Note that recall-based tasks of semantic knowledge (e.g., category generation) show slower recall with each successively retrieved item, and this has been interpreted as OI by some (e.g., Roediger, 1974) but not others (Aue et al, 2015; Bousfield & Sedgewick, 1944; Hills, Jones, & Todd, 2012). This debate is beyond the scope of the current article. …”

Induced forgetting of pictures across shifts in context.

“…Despite empirical differences between induced forgetting and output interference, both output interference (Aue et al, 2015) and induced forgetting (Maxcey et al, 2020) result from episodic retrieval tasks and not semantic retrieval tasks, suggesting a shared underlying mechanism. If induced forgetting and output interference are cut from the same cloth, then the same model will account for both effects.…”