The role of item strength in retrieval-induced forgetting.

Jakab, Emőke; Raaijmakers, Jeroen G. W.

doi:10.1037/a0015264

Cited by 61 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When viewed in isolation, the present results might appear to lend support to the interference account (Jakab & Raaijmakers, 2009). But when these results are considered together with those from Experiment 1, they suggest that allowing participants to control output order likely contributed to the discrepant findings between Experiments 1 and 2.…”

Section: Retrievalsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…However, these results clearly differ from those observed by Jakab and Raaijmakers (2009). As we have discussed in the Introduction, Jakab and Raaijmakers might have obtained equivalent retrieval-induced forgetting regardless of competitor strength because they used category cued recall as their final test, which did not allow one to control output order.…”

Section: Retrieval Practice Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Retrievalsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Retrieval Practice Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

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

show abstract

“…Together, the results have been taken as support for the view that retrievalinduced forgetting is not caused by increased competition arising from the strengthening of practiced items but by inhibitory control mechanisms operating during retrieval practice (Anderson & Spellman, 1995). According to this account, during retrieval practice, a category's not-to-bepracticed items interfere and, as a consequence, are inhibited to reduce interference and make selection of the target information easier (for noninhibitory accounts of retrieval-induced forgetting, see Camp, Pecher, & Schmidt, 2007;Jakab & Raaijmakers, 2009;Perfect et al, 2004).…”

supporting

confidence: 54%

Retrieval-induced forgetting: Dynamic effects between retrieval and restudy trials when practice is mixed

Dobler

Bäuml

2013

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results from numerous previous studies suggest that when subjects study items from different categories and then repeatedly retrieve, or restudy, some of the items from some of the categories, repeated retrieval, but not repeated study, induces forgetting of related unpracticed items. We investigated in two experiments whether such effects of pure retrieval and pure study practice generalize to mixed practice-that is, when retrieval and restudy trials are randomly interleaved within a single experimental block. Experiment 1 employed cued recall; Experiment 2 employed item recognition testing. In both experiments, pure repeated retrieval, but not pure repeated study, caused forgetting of related unpracticed items, which is consistent with the prior work. In contrast, with mixed practice, both retrieval and restudy induced forgetting. Thus, whereas retrieval caused forgetting regardless of practice mode, restudy caused forgetting with mixed practice, but not with pure practice. The finding provides first evidence for dynamic effects between retrieval and restudy trials when practice is mixed. It is consistent with the view that, with mixed practice, subjects engage in more retrieval during restudy trials, so that restudy trials may trigger similar processes as retrieval trials and, thus, induce forgetting of related, not restudied, items.

show abstract

“…Indeed, a growing body of literature challenges the dominant inhibition account (for a review, see Verde, 2012;e.g., Dodd, Castel, & Roberts, 2006;Jakab & Raaijmakers, 2009;Jonker & MacLeod, in press;Raaijmakers & Jakab, 2012;Verde & Perfect, 2011;Williams & Zacks, 2001), and call for a new theoretical explanation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less we forget: Retrieval cues and release from retrieval-induced forgetting

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieving some items from memory can impair the subsequent recall of other related but not retrieved items, a phenomenon called retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). The dominant explanation of RIFthe inhibition account-asserts that forgetting occurs because related items are suppressed during retrieval practice to reduce retrieval competition. This item inhibition persists, making it more difficult to recall the related items on a later test. In our set of experiments, each category was designed such that each exemplar belonged to one of two subcategories (e.g., each BIRD exemplar was either a bird of prey or a pet bird), but this subcategory information was not made explicit during study or retrieval practice.

show abstract

The role of item strength in retrieval-induced forgetting.

Cited by 61 publications

References 28 publications

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

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

Retrieval-induced forgetting: Dynamic effects between retrieval and restudy trials when practice is mixed

Less we forget: Retrieval cues and release from retrieval-induced forgetting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About