Target strength and retrieval-induced forgetting in semantic recall

Campbell, Jamie I. D.; Phenix, Thomas L.

doi:10.3758/mc.37.1.65

Cited by 22 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…RIF is interference dependent (Anderson, 2003); consequently, when a target memory is very strong, target retrieval encounters little interference from competitors and produces little or no RIF of potential competitors. Consistent with this, Campbell and Phenix (2009) demonstrated weaker RIF of addition facts after multiplication counterparts were repeatedly retrieved (and thereby repeatedly strengthened) than following a single retrieval. Our Chinese groups' performance on small multiplications was very fast and accurate, as compared with the large multiplications (see Table 2), which indicates high memory strength and, in theory, little need to inhibit addition competitors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…Language-specific RIF would arise only if retrieval competition between corresponding addition and multiplication facts was language specific. Given that RIF reflects inhibition of retrieval processes in long-term memory (Anderson, 2003;Campbell & Phenix, 2009), the results provide evidence for languagespecific representation of arithmetic facts in our ChineseEnglish bilingual sample.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Transfer refers to the positive or negative effects of practicing a task on subsequent performance of the same or a different task (Singley & Anderson, 1989). One form of negative transfer in arithmetic is retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF): Retrieval practice of a multiplication fact (6 × 5 0 30) produces inhibition of its addition counterpart (6 + 5 0 11), slowing retrieval and increasing errors (Campbell & Phenix, 2009). This phenomenon is relevant to bilingual arithmetic because it represents direct manipulation of the long-term memory representations of addition facts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interoperation transfer in Chinese–English bilinguals’ arithmetic

Campbell

Dowd

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined interoperation transfer of practice in adult Chinese-English bilinguals' memory for simple multiplication (6 × 8 0 48) and addition (6 + 8 0 14) facts. The purpose was to determine whether they possessed distinct number-fact representations in both Chinese (L1) and English (L2). Participants repeatedly practiced multiplication problems (e.g., 4 × 5 0 ?), answering a subset in L1 and another subset in L2. Then separate groups answered corresponding addition problems (4 + 5 0 ?) and control addition problems in either L1 (N 0 24) or L2 (N 0 24). The results demonstrated language-specific negative transfer of multiplication practice to corresponding addition problems. Specifically, large simple addition problems (sum > 10) presented a significant response time cost (i.e., retrieval-induced forgetting) after their multiplication counterparts were practiced in the same language, relative to practice in the other language. The results indicate that our Chinese-English bilinguals had multiplication and addition facts represented in distinct language-specific memory stores.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interoperation transfer in Chinese–English bilinguals’ arithmetic

Campbell

Dowd

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a few studies have shown that nonstudied items can sometimes compete for target retrieval, such competition is likely restricted to items that are extremely accessible in semantic memory (Campbell & Phenix, 2009;Campbell & Thompson, 2012;Carter, 2004;Johnson & Anderson, 2004;Norman, Newman, & Detre, 2007). Regardless, it remains true that nonstudied items should be far less likely to compete for retrieval than studied items.…”

Section: The Interpolated Testing Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chan

Erdman

Davis

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mechanism responsible for retrieval-induced forgetting has been the subject of rigorous theoretical debate, with some researchers postulating that retrieval-induced forgetting can be explained by interference ( J. G .W. Raaijmakers & E. Jakab, 2013) or context reinstatement (T. R. Jonker, P. Seli, & C. M. MacLeod, 2013), whereas others claim that retrieval-induced forgetting is better explained by inhibition (M. C. Anderson, 2003). A fundamental assumption of the inhibition account is that nonpracticed items are suppressed because they compete for retrieval during initial testing. In the current study, we manipulated competition in a novel interpolated testing paradigm by having subjects learn the nonpracticed items either before (high-competition condition) or after (low-competition condition) they practiced retrieval of the target items. We found retrieval-induced forgetting for the nonpracticed competitors only when they were studied before retrieval practice. This result provides support for a critical assumption of the inhibition account. RETRIEVAL-INDUCED FORGETTING AND COMPETITION 2 Authors' NoteMatthew Erdman, who is now at Trane (Ingersoll Rand), collected the data from Experiments 1 and 2 as part of his dissertation. The data from Experiments 3 were 4 were collected by SaraDavis. Jason Chan wrote the manuscript. RETRIEVAL-INDUCED FORGETTING AND COMPETITION 3 AbstractThe mechanism responsible for retrieval-induced forgetting has been the subject of rigorous

show abstract

“…Specifically, these experiments were conducted to examine why a very high level of RIF occurred in one study (Campbell & Phenix, 2009), but not others (Campbell & Thompson, 2012). Experiment 1 combined the variables that differ across studies (i.e., Campbell & Phenix; Campbell & Thompson) to examine if different variable manipulations caused this large amount of RIF to occur.…”

Section: Experiments 1 Comparison Of Percent Error (%E) and Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Failures to replicate hyper-retrieval-induced forgetting in arithmetic memory.

Maslany¹,

Campbell²

2013

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Campbell and Phenix (2009) observed retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) (slower response time) for simple addition facts (e.g., 3 + 4) immediately following 40 retrieval-practice blocks of their multiplication counterparts (3 × 4 = ?). A subsequent single retrieval of the previously unpracticed multiplication problems, however, produced an RIF effect about twice as large for their addition counterparts. Thus, a single retrieval of a multiplication fact appeared to produce much larger RIF of the addition counterpart than did many multiplication retrieval-practice trials.In subsequent similar studies, however, this hyper-RIF effect was not observed (e.g., Campbell iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

show abstract

Target strength and retrieval-induced forgetting in semantic recall

Cited by 22 publications

References 34 publications

Interoperation transfer in Chinese–English bilinguals’ arithmetic

Interoperation transfer in Chinese–English bilinguals’ arithmetic

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

Failures to replicate hyper-retrieval-induced forgetting in arithmetic memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About