What happens when we relearn part of what we previously knew? Predictions and constraints for models of long-term memory

Atkins, Paul W. B.

doi:10.1007/s004269900015

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, exponents of teaching vocabulary in semantic sets should reconsider their view, given that the spread of activation, as shown in this study, is long-lasting and not limited to the learning period. Furthermore, in contrast to Atkins (2001), this study lends support for the part-set effect; the activation of an attrited word resulted in the activation of other attrited words, and this inconsistency with his study might be due to the inclusion of semantic sets in this study. Moreover, many studies in the literature have claimed that the process of relearning an attrited language proceeds more quickly than that of learning it for the first time.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

“…Thus, it was suggested that attriters retained a considerable part of their Dutch vocabulary even after 30 years of disuse. Atkins (2001) maintains that part-set relearning means that relearning previously known words affects the activation and the hence recovery of other forgotten words. Atkins also points out that this could be due to the associative nature of human memory or the notion of spreading activation.…”

Section: Retention Of Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Second language attrition and activation: Are multiple intelligence profiles and semantic categorization playing a role?

Rouhshad¹

2011

Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria De Didáctica De Las Lenguas Extranjeras

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Section: Retention Of Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second language attrition and activation: Are multiple intelligence profiles and semantic categorization playing a role?

Rouhshad¹

2011

Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria De Didáctica De Las Lenguas Extranjeras

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Studies of other sensorimotor tasks have provided a large body of experimental evidence of interference and retention, such as reaching in force fields, visuomotor rotations (Bock et al 2001;Caithness et al 2004;Flanagan et al 1999;Tong et al 2002), interlimb coordination (Swinnen 2002), and verbal learning (Atkins 2001). Here we only compare our results with the data from force field studies due to the fact that reaching in force field could be seen as manipulation of an object (i.e., a robotic handle).…”

Section: Learning Retention and Interference In Sensorimotor Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention and interference of learned dexterous manipulation: interaction between multiple sensorimotor processes

Santello

2015

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fu Q, Santello M. Retention and interference of learned dexterous manipulation: interaction between multiple sensorimotor processes. J Neurophysiol 113: 144 -155, 2015. First published October 1, 2014; doi:10.1152/jn.00348.2014.-An object can be used in multiple contexts, each requiring different hand actions. How the central nervous system builds and maintains memory of such dexterous manipulations remains unclear. We conducted experiments in which human subjects had to learn and recall manipulations performed in two contexts, A and B. Both contexts involved lifting the same L-shaped object whose geometry cued its asymmetrical mass distribution. Correct performance required producing a torque on the vertical handle at object lift onset to prevent it from tilting. The torque direction depended on the context, i.e., object orientation, which was changed by 180°object rotation about a vertical axis. With an A 1 B 1 A 2 context switching paradigm, subjects learned A 1 in the first block of eight trials as indicated by a torque approaching the required one. However, subjects made large errors in anticipating the required torque when switching to B 1 immediately after A 1 (negative transfer), as well as when they had to recall A 1 when switching to A 2 after learning B through another block of eight lifts (retrieval interference). Classic sensorimotor learning theories attribute such interferences to multi-rate, multistate error-driven updates of internal models. However, by systematically changing the interblock break duration and within-block number of trials, our results suggest an alternative explanation underlying interference and retention of dexterous manipulation. Specifically, we identified and quantified through a novel computational model the nonlinear interaction between two sensorimotor mechanisms: a shortlived, context-independent, use-dependent sensorimotor memory and a context-sensitive, error-based learning process. sensorimotor; manipulation; interference; retention DEXTEROUS MANIPULATION is thought to rely on building an internal representation of the task or object dynamics that can be updated through trial-by-trial learning to achieve a stable performance (Flanagan et al. 2001;Nowak et al. 2007;Salimi et al. 2000). However, the underlying sensorimotor mechanisms are not well understood. The properties of the learned representation of a motor task can be evaluated by generalization or retrieval protocols in which subjects are asked to generalize a previously learned task to a new context or recall the learned task in the same context. Until recently, such protocols have been mostly applied to reaching tasks (for review, see , which has led to the establishment of several models of sensorimotor learning. For instance, error-based learning suggests that the central nervous system (CNS) updates the internal model of the task by using errors made in the previous trial(s) (Smith et al. 2006), whereas model-free learning is based on reinforcement and/or usedependent plasticity (Huang et al. 2011). Desp...

show abstract

“…Crucially, this improved performance on the remaining (i.e., nonrelearned) letter positions. However, whereas relearning some associations shows evidence of FLL in some studies [4]–[6], this is not found in not all studies [7]. This discrepancy may be because the many studies performed to investigate this general phenomenon use a wide variety of different materials and procedures, with some measuring recall and others measuring recognition performance, for example.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Falling towards Forgetfulness: Synaptic Decay Prevents Spontaneous Recovery of Memory

Stone

Jupp

2008

PLoS Comput Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long after a new language has been learned and forgotten, relearning a few words seems to trigger the recall of other words. This “free-lunch learning” (FLL) effect has been demonstrated both in humans and in neural network models. Specifically, previous work proved that linear networks that learn a set of associations, then partially forget them all, and finally relearn some of the associations, show improved performance on the remaining (i.e., nonrelearned) associations. Here, we prove that relearning forgotten associations decreases performance on nonrelearned associations; an effect we call negative free-lunch learning. The difference between free-lunch learning and the negative free-lunch learning presented here is due to the particular method used to induce forgetting. Specifically, if forgetting is induced by isotropic drifting of weight vectors (i.e., by adding isotropic noise), then free-lunch learning is observed. However, as proved here, if forgetting is induced by weight values that simply decay or fall towards zero, then negative free-lunch learning is observed. From a biological perspective, and assuming that nervous systems are analogous to the networks used here, this suggests that evolution may have selected physiological mechanisms that involve forgetting using a form of synaptic drift rather than synaptic decay, because synaptic drift, but not synaptic decay, yields free-lunch learning.

show abstract

What happens when we relearn part of what we previously knew? Predictions and constraints for models of long-term memory

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Second language attrition and activation: Are multiple intelligence profiles and semantic categorization playing a role?

Second language attrition and activation: Are multiple intelligence profiles and semantic categorization playing a role?

Retention and interference of learned dexterous manipulation: interaction between multiple sensorimotor processes

Falling towards Forgetfulness: Synaptic Decay Prevents Spontaneous Recovery of Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About