2010
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0912815107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reply to Bäuml and Hanslmayr: Adding or subtracting memories? The neural correlates of learned interference vs. memory inhibition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 13 For additional discussion of the idea that forgetting could be caused by interference from newly learned associations (as opposed to weakening of no-think memories) see Tomlinson et al (2009), Bauml & Hanslmayr (2010), and Huber et al (2010). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 13 For additional discussion of the idea that forgetting could be caused by interference from newly learned associations (as opposed to weakening of no-think memories) see Tomlinson et al (2009), Bauml & Hanslmayr (2010), and Huber et al (2010). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The explanation by Tomlinson and colleagues offers a non-inhibitory explanation to results found in the TNT suggesting interference at the second (recovery) stage rather than just at the first sampling stage. However, this model has been debated (see Bäuml and Hanslmayr, 2010 ) and thus, as annotated by Huber et al ( 2010 ), future studies are needed to scrutinize its assumptions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%