We present a new theoretical account of retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) together with new experimental evidence that fits this account and challenges the dominant inhibition account. RIF occurs when the retrieval of some material from memory produces later forgetting of related material. The inhibition account asserts that RIF is the result of an inhibition mechanism that acts during retrieval to suppress the representations of interfering competitors. This inhibition is enduring, such that the suppressed material is difficult to access on a later test and is, therefore, recalled more poorly than baseline material. Although the inhibition account is widely accepted, a growing body of research challenges its fundamental assumptions. Our alternative account of RIF instead emphasizes the role of context in remembering. According to this context account, both of 2 tenets must be met for RIF to occur: (a) A context change must occur between study and subsequent retrieval practice, and (b) the retrieval practice context must be the active context during the final test when testing practiced categories. The results of 3 experiments, which directly test the divergent predictions of the 2 accounts, support the context account but cannot be explained by the inhibition account. In an extensive discussion, we survey the literature on RIF and apply our context account to the key findings, demonstrating the explanatory power of context.

A number of memory phenomena evident in recall in within-subject, mixed-lists designs are reduced or eliminated in between-subject, pure-list designs. The item-order account (McDaniel & Bugg, 2008) proposes that differential retention of order information might underlie this pattern. According to this account, order information may be encoded when a common form of processing is used alone in a list (e.g., reading), but not when an unusual form of processing is used (e.g., generation) or when a common form and an unusual form are mixed within a list. The production effect--better memory for words said aloud than for words read silently--shows this same design-contingent pattern. In 2 experiments, we investigated whether differential order retention might underlie the production effect. Consistent with the item-order account, we found that retention of order information was better in pure silent lists than in either pure aloud lists or mixed lists, as measured using an order reconstruction test. Moreover, in Experiment 2, order was better preserved in free recall of pure silent lists than of either pure aloud or mixed lists. Thus, production joins the set of tasks identified by McDaniel and Bugg (2008), and our findings suggest a role for order processing in explaining the production effect.

Remembering is a complex process that involves recalling specific details, such as who you were with when you celebrated your last birthday, as well as contextual information, such as the place where you celebrated. It is well established that the act of remembering enhances long-term retention of the retrieved information, but the neural and cognitive mechanisms that drive memory enhancement are not yet understood. One possibility is that the process of remembering results in reactivation of the broader episodic context. Consistent with this idea, in two experiments, we found that multiple retrieval attempts enhanced long-term retention of both the retrieved object and the nontarget object that shared scene context, compared with a restudy control. Using representational similarity analysis of fMRI data in experiment 2, we found that retrieval resulted in greater neural reactivation of both the target objects and contextually linked objects compared with restudy. Furthermore, this reactivation occurred in a network of medial and lateral parietal lobe regions that have been linked to episodic recollection. The results demonstrate that retrieving a memory can enhance retention of information that is linked in the broader event context and the hippocampus and a posterior medial network of parietal cortical areas (also known as the Default Network) play complementary roles in supporting the reactivation of episodically linked information during retrieval.

The study of mind wandering rests upon the assumption that people are able to consistently and accurately introspect and report on these sorts of mental experiences. Although there is some initial evidence that people can indeed accurately report on the subjective experience of mind wandering, to date, no work has directly examined people's degree of confidence in their self-reports of mind wandering and the effects that confidence has on the accuracy of such reports. In the present study, participants completed a sustained-attention task during which they intermittently provided assessments of task engagement (i.e., whether they were focused on the task or mind wandering), as well as reports of confidence in the accuracy of their assessments. This study yielded 3 key findings: We found substantial between- and within-subject variability in both (a) reported mind wandering and (b) confidence in mind-wandering reports, and, most critically, (c) we found that the relation of reported mind wandering and task performance varied as a function of confidence. We discuss the implications of these findings in the context of the literature on mind wandering.

Numerous studies focused on elucidating the correlates, causes, and consequences of inattention/attention-lapses employ the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), a GO-NOGO task with infrequent withholds. Although the SART has become popular among inattention researchers, recent work has demonstrated its susceptibility to speed-accuracy trade-offs (SATOs), rendering its assessment of inattention problematic. Here, we propose and illustrate methods to statistically control for the occurrence of SATOs during SART performance. The statistical solutions presented here can be used to correct standard SART-error scores, including those of already-published data, thereby allowing researchers to re-examine existing data, and to more sensitively evaluate the validity of earlier conclusions.