Interference and Inhibition in Memory Retrieval

Anderson, Michael C.; Neely, James H.

doi:10.1016/b978-012102570-0/50010-0

Cited by 396 publications

(441 citation statements)

References 116 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

413

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An effect of the gender of the structurally unavailable noun on the retrieval of the antecedent of otra would constitute evidence for cue-based interference during sentence comprehension. This would be consistent with results from basic memory research that show retrieval interference as a major determinant of retrieval failure (Anderson and Neely, 1996;Keppel and Underwood, 1962;see Nairne, 2002a for a review; Waugh and Norman, 1965), and provide further insights to the major determinants of processing complexity during language comprehension (e.g., Gordon et al, 2001;Lewis et al, 2006;McElree, 2006;McElree et al, 2003;Van Dyke, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful language use requires access to products of past processing within an evolving discourse. A central issue for any neurocognitive theory of language then concerns the role of memory variables during language processing. Under a cue-based retrieval account of language comprehension, linguistic dependency resolution (e.g., retrieving antecedents) is subject to interference from other information in the sentence, especially information that occurs between the words that form the dependency (e.g., between the antecedent and the retrieval site). Retrieval interference may then shape processing complexity as a function of the match of the information at retrieval with the antecedent versus other recent or similar items in memory. To address these issues, we studied the online processing of ellipsis in Castilian Spanish, a language with morphological gender agreement. We recorded event-related brain potentials while participants read sentences containing nounphrase ellipsis indicated by the determiner otro/a ('another'). These determiners had a grammatically correct or incorrect gender with respect to their antecedent nouns that occurred earlier in the sentence. Moreover, between each antecedent and determiner, another noun phrase occurred that was structurally unavailable as an antecedent and that matched or mismatched the gender of the antecedent (i.e., a local agreement attractor). In contrast to extant P600 results on agreement violation processing, and inconsistent with predictions from neurocognitive models of sentence processing, grammatically incorrect determiners evoked a sustained, broadly distributed negativity compared to correct ones between 400 and 1000 ms after word onset, possibly related to sustained negativities as observed for referential processing difficulties. Crucially, this effect was modulated by the attractor: an increased negativity was observed for grammatically correct determiners that did not match the gender of the attractor, suggesting that structurally unavailable noun phrases were at least temporarily considered for grammatically correct ellipsis. These results constitute the first ERP evidence for cue-based retrieval interference during comprehension of grammatical sentences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More often than not, a given retrieval cue is related to many memories, only a subset of which are useful in a given situation. A rich body of research demonstrates a strong relationship between the number of memory competitors associated with a cue and the difficultly in successfully retrieving a particular target memory (e.g., Anderson, 1974;Anderson & Neely, 1996;McGeoch, 1942;Postman, 1971). The problem is compounded when we must overcome a prepotent, yet inappropriate, memory trace in favor of a weaker, relevant one.…”

Section: Inhibition In Selective Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Hulbert

Anderson

2008

Advances in Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…PI is said to occur when retrieval of a recent episode (e.g., Word List 2) is impaired because of the prior study of a similar episode (e.g., Word List 1). Several memory theories assume, implicitly or explicitly, that resisting PI should require some type of controlled processing either at the encoding or retrieval of List 2 (e.g., M. C. ; M. C. Anderson & Neely, 1996;Hasher & Zacks, 1988). Indirect evidence for this assumption comes from studies showing that PI is maximized when prior-list information gains access to working memory coincidentally with target information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Kane¹,

Engle²

2000

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

497

498

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Two experiments examined how individual differences in working-memory capacity (WM) relate -to proactive interference (PI) susceptibility. We tested high and low WM-span participants in a PI-buildup task under singletask or dual-task ("load") conditions. In Experiment 1, a finger-tapping task was imposed during encoding anti retrieval of each list; in Experiment 2, tapping was required during encoding or retrieval. In both experiments, low spans showed greater PI than did high spans under no load, but groups showed equivalent PI under divided attention. Load increased PI only for high spans, suggesting they use attention at encoding and retrieval to combat N. In Experiment 2, only low spans showed a dual-task cost on List 1 memory, before PI built up. Results indicate a role for attentional processing, perhaps inhibitory in nature, at encoding and retrieval, and are discussed with respect to theories of WM and prefrontal cortex function. Article:The central executive component of working memory is now a focus of theoretical and empirical interest. Although its functions are still under-specified, they are most often characterized as "attentional"

show abstract

Interference and Inhibition in Memory Retrieval

Cited by 396 publications

References 116 publications

Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension

Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About