Retrieval-induced versus context-induced forgetting: Does retrieval-induced forgetting depend on context shifts?

Abstract

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is the observation that retrieval of target information causes forgetting of related non-target information. A number of accounts of this phenomenon have been proposed, including a context-shift based account (Jonker, Seli, & Macleod, 2013). This account proposes that RIF occurs due to the context shift from study to retrieval practice, provided there is little context shift between retrieval practice and test phases. We tested both claims put forth by this context account. In Experiment 1, we degraded the context shift between study and retrieval practice by implementing a generative study condition that was highly similar to retrieval practice. We observed no degradation of RIF for these generated exemplars relative to a conventional study control. In Experiment 2, we conceptually replicated the finding of RIF following generative study, and tested whether context differences between each of the three phases affected the size of RIF. Our findings were again contrary to the predictions of the context account. Conjointly, the two experiments refute arguments about the potential inadequacy of our context shifts that could be used to explain either result alone. Overall, our results are most consistent with an inhibitory account of RIF (e.g., Anderson, 2003).

Competition dependence of retrieval-induced forgetting in motor memory

“…Given equal initial states of activation, the disadvantageous activation of the retrieval-practice context only for Rp-items, but not for Nrp-items, still should have impaired the recall of Rp-items. The present challenge of the context-change account of RIF is in line with very recent work indicating that a change in mental context is neither necessary nor sufficient for RIF to occur (Buchli, Storm, & Bjork, 2015;Soares, Polack, & Miller, 2015).…”

Towards augmented human memory: Retrieval-induced forgetting and retrieval practice in an interactive, end-of-day review.

“…Moreover, a more recent, alternative (noninhibitory) theory based on changes in context ( Jonker, Seli, & MacLeod, 2013 ) argues that the retrieval practice paradigm produces RIF because the context at test more closely matches the context at retrieval practice than the context at original study. Jonker et al found that RIF could be eliminated following manipulations at test that helped reinstate the original study context (a claim that has itself already attracted some counterclaims, see Chan, Erdman, & Davis, 2015 ; Soares, Polack, & Miller, 2016 ).…”

Benefitting from trial spacing without the cost of prolonged training: Frequency, not duration, of trials with absent stimuli enhances perceived contingency

“…First, the trial markers (TM) borders were made unique across conditions (see Figure S1). We did this to avoid a potential TM-contextual carryover effect that might have enhanced similarlity between conditions, given that trial context can be a crucial factor for judgments and behaviour in humans (e.g., Msetfi, Wade, & Murphy, 2013;Soares, Polack, & Miller, 2016), as well as for expressing learning by nonhumans (Jozefowiez, Witnauer, & Miller, 2012;Murphy, Baker, & Fouquet, 2001;Urcelay, Witnauer, & Miller, 2012; for a review see also Urcelay & Miller, 2014). Second, we added a discrete context stimulus that was unique for each condition to enhance the distinctiveness of the contexts in each condition (Murphy & Baker, 2004;Waugh & Norman, 1965).…”