A limit on retrieval-induced forgetting.

Butler, Karin M.; Williams, Carrick C.; Zacks, Rose T.; Maki, Ruth H.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1314

Cited by 58 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anderson et al (1994) found retrievalinduced forgetting, both when providing category cues at test and when providing additional item-specific cues, such as the first two letters of the target items. Butler, Williams, Zacks, and Maki (2001) replicated the result with respect to category cues but failed to show retrieval-induced forgetting on tests using item-specific cues, such as categoryplus-stem-cued recall or category-plus-fragment-cued recall. We used category-plus-first-letter cues to control the subjects' output sequence and found reliable retrievalinduced forgetting and reliable part-list cuing.…”

Section: The Role Of Item-specific Cues In Retrievalinduced Forgettinsupporting

confidence: 56%

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Role Of Item-specific Cues In Retrievalinduced Forgettinsupporting

confidence: 56%

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, this explanation is unlikely because several of the boundary conditions under which retrieval-induced forgetting effects disappear are present in our study: relational processing of the material during learning (e.g., Anderson & McCulloch, 1999), the use of specific retrieval cues on the criterial test (i.e. as opposed to category cues; e.g., Butler, Williams, Zacks, & Maki, 2001), and retention intervals longer than 24 hours (e.g., MacLeod & Macrae, 2001). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Integrating Cognitive Science and Technology Improves Learning in a STEM Classroom

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The possibility of explicit contamination is always a concern in research using implicit memory tests (e.g., Mulligan, 2002;Mulligan & Hartman, 1996). The fact that participants in the Butler et al (2001) study detected the relation between the test phase and the study and practice phases indicates that this is indeed possible. Noticing this connection could have triggered explicit retrieval of the category, RPϩ items, and NRP items, which could have influenced the response latencies for the RPϪ items in Veling and van Knippenberg's experiment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike what is done in explicit memory tasks such as category-cued recall, no reference is made to the study phase in implicit memory tasks. Butler, Williams, Zacks, and Maki (2001) used a wordfragment completion task to test implicit memory in the retrieval-practice paradigm. They did not obtain retrievalinduced forgetting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conceptual memory tasks rely on semantic processing of the items, whereas performance in perceptual memory tasks relies mostly on the processing of the physical attributes of the items (e.g., Blaxton, 1989). If retrieval-induced forgetting is restricted to conceptual tests of memory, this could explain why Butler et al (2001) did not find retrieval-induced forgetting using explicit perceptual memory tests. However, Perfect et al did not use independent cues in the category generation task and the category verification task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrieval-induced forgetting in implicit memory tests: The role of test awareness

Camp

Pecher

Schmidt

2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies using the retrieval-practice paradigm have shown that inhibition can play a role in retrieval from memory (for a review, see Anderson, 2003). In the retrieval-practice paradigm, participants first study a number of category-exemplar pairs, followed by retrieval practice with half of the studied exemplars from half of the studied categories. Retrieval practice is carried out using a category-plus-word-stem cued recall task. Their memory is then tested for both practiced and unpracticed exemplars. Typically, results show an increase in recall for practiced items (RPϩ items) and a decrease in recall for unpracticed items (RPϪ items) that belong to the same category as the practiced items, when compared with exemplars from categories that received no retrieval practice (NRP items). In this final recall test, the names of the studied categories are used as cues.Anderson and Spellman (1995) adapted the retrievalpractice paradigm and found retrieval-induced forgetting using independent extralist retrieval cues. These results led Anderson and Spellman to conclude that retrievalinduced forgetting is an inhibitory effect and that the relation between the category and the exemplar or between the practiced and unpracticed items within the category is not inhibited, but rather the unpracticed item itself. They considered cue-independent forgetting to be an empirical criterion for inhibition.However, if retrieval-induced forgetting is due to item inhibition, it should also be found using different types of tests. In principle, the retrieval-induced forgetting effect should be found with any type of test assessing the activation of the inhibited item. A number of studies have investigated the validity of this claim using implicit memory tasks rather than the category-cued recall task used traditionally in the test phase of the retrieval-practice paradigm. Unlike what is done in explicit memory tasks such as category-cued recall, no reference is made to the study phase in implicit memory tasks.Butler, Williams, Zacks, and Maki (2001) used a wordfragment completion task to test implicit memory in the retrieval-practice paradigm. They did not obtain retrievalinduced forgetting. Nor did they obtain retrieval-induced forgetting in several experiments with explicit tests of memory such as word-fragment-cued recall, categoryplus-word-fragment-cued recall, and category-plus-stemcued recall. They found retrieval-induced forgetting only in the standard category-cued recall condition. Therefore, retrieval-induced forgetting seems to depend more on visually presenting a part of the target item than on whether the final memory test is implicit or explicit. In addition, Butler et al. note that most participants detected the connection between the test phase and the study and practice phases. Therefore, the word-fragment completion task could not be regarded as truly implicit.Perfect, Moulin, Conway, and Perry (2002) used five different tests of implicit memory in the retrieval-practice paradigm: category generation, cate...

show abstract

A limit on retrieval-induced forgetting.

Cited by 58 publications

References 14 publications

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

Integrating Cognitive Science and Technology Improves Learning in a STEM Classroom

Retrieval-induced forgetting in implicit memory tests: The role of test awareness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About