Retrieval Practice Fails to Insulate Episodic Memories against Interference after Stroke

Abstract

Recent work in cognitive psychology showed that retrieval practice of previously studied information can insulate this information against retroactive interference from subsequently studied other information in healthy individuals. The present study examined whether this beneficial effect of interference reduction is also present in patients with stroke. Twenty-two patients with stroke, 4.6 months post injury on average, and 22 healthy controls participated in the experiment. In each of two experimental sessions, participants first studied a list of items (list 1) and then underwent a practice phase in which the list 1 items were either restudied or retrieval practiced. Participants then either studied a second list of items (list 2) or fulfilled an unrelated distractor task. Recall of the two lists’ items was assessed in a final criterion test. Results showed that, in healthy controls, additional study of list 2 items impaired final recall of list 1 items in the restudy condition but not in the retrieval practice condition. In contrast, in patients with stroke, list 2 learning impaired final list 1 recall in both conditions. The results indicate that retrieval practice insulated the tested information against retroactive interference in healthy controls, but failed to do so in patients with stroke. Possible implications of the findings for the understanding of long-term memory impairment after stroke are discussed.

Retrieval practice enhances memory for names in survivors of stroke.

“…Our finding that retrieval practice significantly enhanced memory after 30 min is consistent with previous studies in clinical populations including traumatic brain injury and multiple sclerosis (Sumowski, Chiaravalloti, & DeLuca, 2010; Sumowski et al, 2013, 2014; Sumowski, Wood, et al, 2010). Additionally, our results contrast with findings from Pastötter et al (2017) suggesting that retrieval practice is effective in stroke survivors over longer retention intervals. Notably, the current study differed from the study by Pastötter et al with regard to the material to be learned (name–face pairs vs. a word list) and the nature of the final test (cued vs. free recall in their study).…”

“…Given the heterogeneity of memory difficulties experienced by stroke survivors (Evans, Wong, Lawson, Withiel, & Stolwyk, 2019) and the potential age difference between stroke survivors and other clinical groups, it is important to investigate whether stroke survivors might also derive benefit from using retrieval practice. Just one study has investigated whether retrieval practice enhances memory in stroke survivors and found no significant benefit (Pastötter, Eberle, Aue, & Bäuml, 2017); however, participants’ recall was assessed after a delay of just 3 min. Critically, the magnitude of memory enhancement due to retrieval practice has been shown to increase over longer time intervals (Rowland, 2014), so it is important to investigate whether retrieval practice boosts stroke survivors’ memory over a longer period.…”

The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners’ Working Memory Capacity

“…In addition, several studies have established both backward (Meyer & Logan, 2013) and forward testing effects (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2019) and test-potentiated learning (Coane, 2013) in older adults, with the size of the effects comparable to younger adults. Furthermore, reliable testing effects were observed in memory-impaired patient groups, including patients with multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, and Alzheimer’s disease (Balota, Duchek, Sergent-Marshall, & Roediger, 2006; Pastötter, Weber, & Bäuml, 2013; Sumowski, Chiaravalloti, & DeLuca, 2010; Sumowski, Wood et al, 2010; but see Pastötter, Eberle, Aue, & Bäuml, 2017).…”

The forward testing effect is reliable and independent of learners’ working memory capacity

“…In addition, several studies have established both backward (Meyer & Logan, 2013) and forward testing effects (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2019) and test-potentiated learning (Coane, 2013) in older adults, with the size of the effects comparable to younger adults. Furthermore, reliable testing effects were observed in memory-impaired patient groups, including patients with multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, and Alzheimer's disease (Balota, Duchek, Sergent-Marshall, & Roediger, 2006;Pastötter, Weber, & Bäuml, 2013;Sumowski, Wood et al, 2010; but see Pastötter, Eberle, Aue, & Bäuml, 2017).…”