Examining the costs and benefits of inhibition in memory retrieval

Abstract

Inhibitory control is thought to serve an adaptive function in controlling behavior, with individual differences predicting variation in numerous cognitive functions. However, inhibition is more properly construed as inducing both benefits and costs to performance. Benefits arise at the point when inhibition prevents expression of an unwanted or contextually inappropriate response; costs arise later, when access to the inhibited representation is required by other processes. Here we illustrate how failure to consider both the costs and benefits of inhibition has generated confusion in the literature on individual differences in cognitive control. Using retrieval-induced forgetting as a model case, we illustrate this by showing that changing the way that retrieval-induced forgetting is measured to allow greater expression of the benefits of inhibition together with the costs can reduce and even reverse the theoretically predicted correlation between motor and memory inhibition. Specifically, we show that when the final test in a retrieval-induced forgetting procedure employs item-specific cues (i.e., category-plus-stem cued recall and item-recognition) that better isolate the lingering costs of inhibition, better motor response inhibition (faster stop-signal reaction times) predicts greater retrieval-induced forgetting. In striking contrast, when the final test is less well controlled, allowing both the costs and benefits of inhibition to contribute, motor response inhibition has the opposite relationship with retrieval-induced forgetting. These findings underscore the importance of considering the correlated costs and benefits problem when studying individual differences in inhibitory control. More generally, they suggest that a shared inhibition mechanism may underlie people's ability to control memories and actions.

Does retrieving a memory insulate it against memory inhibition? A retroactive interference study

“…The fact that forgetting still occurred indicates that the decreased recall likely reflects genuine retrieval failure for A-B items. A cue-dependent retrieval failure of this sort is consistent with the potential for non-inhibitory blocking processes to contribute to forgetting measured on sameprobe tests (for a discussion, see Schilling, Storm, & Anderson, 2014). It is also consistent with the numerically larger forgetting effects observed on the same-and independent-probe tests in the retrieval practice conditions (M = 17% vs. 12% on the same-and independent-probe tests, respectively, in Experiment 1; M = 14% vs. 6% in Experiment 2).…”

Competition dependence of retrieval-induced forgetting in motor memory

“…Neuroimaging studies have shown that the inhibitory control mechanisms involved in voluntarily stopping actions and inhibiting memories overlap (Anderson & Hanslmayr, 2014). Consistently, Schilling, Storm, and Anderson (2014) reported a positive relationship between motor inhibition and memory inhibition, with individuals who showed better performance in the stop-signal task also showing higher amounts of RIF in verbal memory. RIF of motor sequences may provide a further way to scrutinize whether inhibitory control works in a supramodal way or whether the distinct inhibitory mechanisms involved in stopping action can be separated from the processes that resolve interference in motor memory.…”

Dynamical bridge between brain and mind

“…Inhibition plays a key role in the goal-directed control of thought and behavior, memory, decision-making, speech production, and other cognitive tasks [54][55][56]. Around a decade ago, a dynamical principle, based on inhibition, was suggested to be a leading mechanism of many sequential cognitive activities: the winnerless competition (WLC) principle [27,37,57].…”