Successful inhibition, unsuccessful retrieval: Manipulating time and success during retrieval practice

Abstract

Retrieving an item or set of items from memory can cause the forgetting of other related items in memory; a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting. According to the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting, in searching for a particular item, other items that are related but incorrect can vie for access. Inhibition functions to decrease the accessibility of such interfering items, thereby facilitating access to the target item. Experiments 1 and 2 replicated recent work suggesting that retrieval success is not a necessary condition for retrieval-induced forgetting to occur. Interfering items were forgotten even when retrieval practice was designed to be impossible. Experiments 3 and 4 employed the impossible retrieval practice procedure to examine the time-course of forgetting across a single retrieval practice trial. Results support the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting and offer insight into the dynamics of how and when inhibition plays a role in retrieval.

Retrieval induces forgetting, but only when nontested items compete for retrieval: Implication for interference, inhibition, and context reinstatement.

“…Overall, there is relatively strong empirical evidence for the strength independence assumption (Erdman & Chan, 2013;Storm & Nestojko, 2010), but a problem with strength independence is that more sophisticated, modern interference accounts are able to account for patterns consistent with strength independence (Verde, 2013). Perhaps more importantly, strength independence is unlikely to apply under all conditions.…”

A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting

“…Normal levels of retrieval-induced forgetting are observed when retrieval practice is made impossible, thus ensuring that participants fail to retrieve anything during retrieval practice (Storm et al, 2006;Storm & Nestojko, 2010). In fact, three experiments have directly compared possible and impossible retrieval practice, and none have found possible retrieval practice to cause more retrieval-induced forgetting than does impossible retrieval practice.…”

“…For example, studies have employed category-plus-one-letter-stem retrieval cues (e.g., fruitl_____) to control the order in which items are tested and to ensure that Rp+ items are not recalled before Rp-items (e.g., M. C. Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 2000;; M. C. Anderson & McCulloch, 1999;Aslan, Bäuml, & Pastötter, 2007;Bäuml, 2002;Bäuml & Hartinger, 2002;Johansson, Aslan, Bäuml, Gäbel, & Mecklinger, 2007;Storm, Bjork, & Bjork, 2007Storm, Bjork, Bjork, & Nestojko, 2006;Storm & Nestojko, 2010). Forgetting has also been observed with materials other than the standard category exemplars when item-specific cues are used to control output order: proposition-plus-letter-stem cues (M. C. Anderson & Bell, 2001;Gómez-Ariza et al, 2005), semantic-associate-plus-letter-stem cues (Kuhl, Dudukovic, Khan, & Wagner, 2007), extralist-semantic-associate-plus-letter-stem cues (M. C. Anderson, Green, & McCulloch, 2000;Johnson & Anderson, 2004;Levy et al, 2007), and letter-stem cues in isolation (Bajo et al, 2006).…”

Providing corrective feedback during retrieval practice does not increase retrieval-induced forgetting

“…Because providing feedback after the retrieval attempt would not alter the level of retrieval competition (and therefore inhibition), it should not affect the magnitude of retrieval-induced forgetting. Moreover, one prominent assumption of inhibition theory is that retrieval suppression is independent of the strength or retrieval success of the tested items (Anderson, 2003;Bauml, 2002;Storm & Nestojko, 2010;Storm, Bjork, Bjork, & Nestojko, 2006). The reasoning is that when one attempts to recall a target memory, other items in memory (e.g., the items that share the retrieval cue with the target) compete for retrieval.…”