A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting

Storm, Benjamin C.; Levy, Benjamin J.

doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0211-7

Cited by 173 publications

(219 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

207

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These researchers argued that substantial empirical evidence has emerged that points toward a revision of the inhibition account proposed by Anderson and colleagues (but see Murayama et al, 2014;Storm & Levy, 2012). Our view is that it might be worthwhile to reconsider the relatively equal footing that researchers heretofore have given the four principles.…”

Section: Induced Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…But the cue independence assumption has come under questions as some researchers have failed to report the effect (K. M. Butler, Williams, Zacks, & Maki, 2001;Camp, Pecher, & Schmidt, 2005;Camp, Pecher, Schmidt, & Zeelenberg, 2009;Perfect et al, 2004). An alternative version of the inhibition account can emphasize the role that inhibition plays on the association between the cue and the target, and less so on the target itself (Murayama et al, 2014;Storm & Levy, 2012). Admittedly, adopting such a theoretical perspective may make inhibition theory more similar to interference theory, but the major distinction of active weakening of some memorial representation remains, and this is an idea unique to inhibition.…”

Section: Induced Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Induced Forgettingmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Induced Forgettingmentioning

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

show abstract

“…RIF in arithmetic has also been found in neuropsychological studies (Galfano et al, 2011 (Anderson, 2003;Storm & Levy, 2012). Given our inability to produce hyper-RIF, the following sections review known…”

Section: Percent Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To explain these findings, Campbell and Phenix proposed that 40 repetitions of the MP multiplication problems during the practice phase yielded such high memory strength for these items that, by the end of practice, the addition counterparts were relatively weak retrieval competitors and would not attract inhibition and RIF (see e.g., Storm & Levy, 2012, for a discussion of competition dependence of RIF). Thus, the addition RIF effect observed for the retrieval group in Block 1 was relatively weak.…”

Section: Hyper-rif In Arithmeticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been studied in many different contexts including autobiographical memories (e.g., Barnier, Hung & Conway, 2004), social cognition (e.g., Storm, Bjork & Bjork, 2005), eyewitness memory (e.g., Shaw, Bjork, & Handal, 1995), memory for location (e.g., Gómez-Ariza, Fernandez, & Bajo, 2012), and varied delays between study and test (Abel & Baüml, 2012). There are over 200 studies that have experimentally demonstrated RIF, but it is still poorly understood (Storm & Levy, 2012).…”

Section: Historical Review Of Rifmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Maslany¹,

Campbell²

2013

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

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

Inhibition in Memory

Raaijmakers

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past 20 years, a new approach to forgetting has been proposed, based on the notion of inhibition. According to this view forgetting is partly due to a process of inhibitory control. In this chapter, I review the current status of this account, discussing the evidence that has been proposed as well as the counterarguments that have been made. I show that the paradigms that are likely to generate the best evidence for inhibition are the retrieval induced forgetting paradigm and the think / no-think paradigm. Other paradigms such as directed forgetting and part-list cuing seem to be better explained using other memory principles. I conclude that there is a need for a consistent and preferably formalized model that combines inhibition and competition as principal factors in forgetting.

show abstract

A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting

Cited by 173 publications

References 133 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.

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

Inhibition in Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About