How we forget may depend on how we remember

Sadeh, Talya; Ozubko, Jason D.; Winocur, Gordon; Moscovitch, Morris

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.008

Cited by 122 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, repetition may affect one's ability to discriminate as a memory trace shifts its dependence entirely from the hippocampus to cortical substrates, and may elicit differential effects of decay and interference. In particular, higher reliance on familiarity may make a memory trace more susceptible to interference, and may thus hinder discriminability (Sadeh et al 2014). We note, however, that such an account is not inconsistent with the tenets of CTT, and that increased reliance on familiarity can be seen as a result of semanticization as the hippocampus itself induces interference with repetition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Repetition strengthens target recognition but impairs similar lure discrimination: evidence for trace competition

Reagh

Yassa

2014

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most theories of memory assume that representations are strengthened with repetition. We recently proposed Competitive Trace Theory, building on the hippocampus' powerful capacity to orthogonalize inputs into distinct outputs. We hypothesized that repetition elicits a similar but nonidentical memory trace, and that contextual details of traces may compete for representation over time. We designed a task in which objects were incidentally encoded either one or three times. Supporting our theory, repetition improved target recognition, but impaired rejection of similar lures. This suggests that, in contrast to past beliefs, repetition may reduce the fidelity of memory representations.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Repetition strengthens target recognition but impairs similar lure discrimination: evidence for trace competition

Reagh

Yassa

2014

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike our other studies (Edelstyn et al, 2007(Edelstyn et al, , 2010Shepherd et al, 2013), in this one, before testing memory, we used a 25 min delay during which participants were occupied with other tasks. This would have produced interference, which, according to Sadeh, Ozubko, Winocur, and Moscovitch (2014), is the main mechanism responsible for forgetting of perirhinally-supported familiarity memory. This suggestion is consistent with the two previous PD studies reporting a selective familiarity deficit, where a filled delay of 10 min (Davidson, et al, 2006) and 30 min (Weiermann, et al, 2010) was introduced between study and test.…”

Section: Q11mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of an amnesia-like cued-recall memory impairment in nondementing idiopathic Parkinson's disease

Edelstyn

John

Shepherd

et al. 2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Familiarity Medial temporal lobe Prefrontal cortexParkinson's disease a b s t r a c t Medicated, non-dementing mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease (PD) patients usually show recall/recollection impairments but have only occasionally shown familiarity impairments. We aimed to assess two explanations of this pattern of impairment.Recollection typically improves when effortful planning of encoding and retrieval processing is engaged. This depends on prefrontally-dependent executive processes, which are often disrupted in PD. Relative to an unguided encoding and retrieval of words condition (C1), giving suitable guidance at encoding alone (C2) or at encoding and retrieval (C3) should, if executive processes are disrupted, improve PD recollection more than control recollection and perhaps raise it to normal levels. Familiarity, being a relatively automatic kind of memory, whether impaired or intact, should be unaffected by guidance. According to the second explanation, PD deficits are amnesia-like and caused by medial temporal lobe dysfunction and although poorer recollection, which is caused by hippocampal disruption, may be improved by guidance, it should not improve more than control recollection. Familiarity impairment will also occur if the perirhinal cortex is disrupted, but will be unimproved by guidance. Without guidance, recollection/ recall was impaired in thirty PD patients relative to twenty-two healthy controls and remained relatively equally impaired when full guidance was provided (C1 vs C3), both groups improving to broadly the same extent. Although impaired, and markedly less so than recollection, familiarity was not improved by guidance in both groups.The patients showed elevated rates of subclinical depressive symptoms, which weakly correlated with recall/recollection in all three conditions. PD executive function was also deficient and correlated with unguided/C1 recollection only. Our results are * Corresponding author. School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.E-mail address: n.edelstyn@keele.ac.uk (N.M.J. Edelstyn).Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirectJournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cortex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

show abstract

“…Recent evidence, however, suggests that item and associative memory can both depend on recollection and familiarity (Smith et al 2011), and it is these processes, rather than the types of memory, that determine the neural substrates that are implicated. Less is known, however, about the factors that determine the rate of forgetting for items and associations (e.g., Wixted 1990;Hockley and Consoli 1999;Sadeh et al 2014). In this paper, we examine the forgetting rate of item and associative memories to ascertain whether recollection and familiarity are determining factors, as they are in retention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Sadeh et al (2014) proposed a twofactor, representational theory of forgetting that posits that forgetting depends on how we remember, namely on how items are initially represented in memory. In particular, they based their theory on a proposal by Hardt et al (2013) that memory relying on the hippocampus is relatively resistant to interference, but , memories relying on recollection are more sensitive to decay but are relatively resistant to interference from irrelevant information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients with hippocampal lesions have more rapid forgetting of recollection-based memory for recent events (for review, see Sadeh et al 2014). Because the hippocampus is crucial in processing detailed or contextual information (for review, see Davachi 2006;Mayes et al 2007) even after a long time (Gilboa et al 2004, Moscovitch et al 2006, the recollection change may reflect the extent to which detailed information is forgotten over time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are associative memories forgotten more quickly than item memories, and does the level of original learning differentially influence forgetting rates? In this study, we addressed these questions by having participants learn single words and word pairs once (Experiment 1), three times (Experiment 2), and six times (Experiment 3) in a massed learning (ML) or a distributed learning (DL) mode. Then they were tested for item and associative recognition separately after four retention intervals: 10 min, 1 d, 1 wk, and 1 mo. The contribution of recollection and familiarity processes were assessed by participants' remember/know judgments. The results showed that for both item and associative memories, across different degrees of learning, recollection decreased significantly and was the main source of forgetting over time, whereas familiarity remained relatively stable over time. Learning multiple times led to slower forgetting at shorter intervals, depending on recollection and familiarity processes. Compared with massed learning, distributed learning (six times) especially benefited associative memory by increasing recollection, leading to slower forgetting at longer intervals. This study highlighted the importance of process contribution and learning experiences in modulating the forgetting rates of item and associative memories. We interpret these results within the framework of a dual factor representational model of forgetting (as noted in a previous study) in which recollection is more prone to decay over time than familiarity.According to the contents of the retrieved information, memory can be divided into item memory and associative memory (Murdock 1997; Squire and Wixed 2011). Unlike on tests of item memory, on tests of associative memory, participants have to determine whether the relations between items, or item-context relations, are learned during a study. Establishing and maintaining associations between items is an important aspect of episodic memory. Whether associative memory relies on different mechanisms from item memory remains a central issue of memory research (Murdock 1997;Squire et al. 2004;Davachi 2006). Many studies have suggested that they are dissociated in both behavioral mechanisms and neural substrates, with associative memory relying primarily on recollection and item memory, on familiarity (Gardiner et al. 2002;Cohn and Moscovitch 2007;Eichenbaum et al. 2007). In addition, the hippocampus is critical for and more involved in associative memory than in item memory, whereas the opposite holds for the perirhinal cortex (Davachi 2006;Eichenbaum et al. 2007; but see ). Recent evidence, however, suggests that item and associative memory can both depend on recollection and familiarity (Smith et al. 2011), and it is these processes, rather than the types of memory, that determine the neural substrates that are implicated. Less is known, however, about the factors that determine the rate of forgetting for items and associations (e.g., Wixted 1990;Hockley and Consoli 1999;Sadeh et al. 2014). In ...

show abstract

How we forget may depend on how we remember

Cited by 122 publications

References 106 publications

Repetition strengthens target recognition but impairs similar lure discrimination: evidence for trace competition

Repetition strengthens target recognition but impairs similar lure discrimination: evidence for trace competition

Evidence of an amnesia-like cued-recall memory impairment in nondementing idiopathic Parkinson's disease

Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About