An inhibition-based fan effect: Evidence for an active suppression mechanism in selective attention.

Neumann, Ewald; DeSchepper, Brett

doi:10.1037/h0084309

Cited by 175 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(114 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Citing a presumed parallel to the negative priming paradigm described earlier, Neumann et al (1993), and Neumann and DeSchepper (1992) concur with Bjork (1989) in making a claim opposite to our assumption that a forget cue would result in less than complete suppression of TBF items even for young adults. These authors have argued that presentation of a forget cue results in suppression of TBF items to a below-baseline level of activation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Studies of directed forgetting in older adults.

Zacks¹,

Radvansky²,

Hasher³

1996

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

302

346

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Younger and older adults were compared in 4 directed forgetting experiments. These varied in the use of categorized versus unrelated word lists and in the use of item by item versus blocked remember-forget cueing procedures. Consistent with L. Hasher and R. T. Zacks's (1988) hypothesis of impaired inhibitory mechanisms in older adults, a variety of findings indicated that this age group is less able than yoimger adults to suppress the processing and retrieval of items designated as to be forgotten (TBF). Specifically, in comparison with younger adults, older adults produced more TBF word intrusions on an immediate recall test (Experiments 1A and 1B), took longer to reject TBF items (relative to a neutral baseline) on an immediate recognition test (Experiment 3), and recalled (Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2) and recognized (Experiments 1B and 2) relatively more TBF items on delayed retention tests in which all studied items were designated as targets.In this article, we present four experiments comparing the performance of younger and older adults on directed forgetting tasks. In this type of task (e.g., see Bjork, 1989), participants are presented items to study, some of which they are told to remember and others of which they are told to forget. Because the cueing as to which items are to be remembered (TBR items) and which are to be forgotten (TBF items) occurs after the items have been presented for study, participants must pay some attention to each item as it is presented. Thus, the directed forgetting paradigm investigates the ability to forget some inputs that one has recently attended to while at the same time remembering others presented in the same context and near the same time. To the degree that one is successful at this task, as younger adults generally are, the following trends are seen: The presence of TBF items on a list does not reduce recall or recognition of TBR items; there are few intrusions of TBF items when participants are asked to report only TBR items; and performance on TBF items is relatively poor when, on a later retention test, participants are asked to report TBF as well as TBR items.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Studies of directed forgetting in older adults.

Zacks¹,

Radvansky²,

Hasher³

1996

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

302

346

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although attentional resources are "stretched" between the two objects, the primary focus is maintained on the fixated object when it becomes the target. In this case, once the target identity is confirmed for the focused object, the information about the other object (i.e., the distractor) needs to be inhibited similarly to the inhibition of return (IOR) effect (Posner and Cohen, 1984) or a negative priming effect (Neumann and DeSchepper, 1992;Tipper et al, 1991). This interpretation is supported by some previous findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A straightforward explanation of negative priming, based on the notion of selective inhibition (e.g., Neill, 1989;Neumann & DeSchepper, 1992;Tipper, 1985;Yee, 1991), is as follows: All items in the visual field are identified, processing of target objects is then activated, while further processing of distracting objects is inhibited. This inhibition persists from prime to probe displays, causing the negative priming phenomenon.…”

Section: A Selective Inhibition Model Of Selective Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, if subjects are encouraged to respond rapidly to target objects, the nature of priming from ignored items tends to be positive (i.e., facilitatory). However, when accuracy is emphasized and responding is slower, ignored objects are more likely to produce negative priming (Neill & Westberry, 1987;Neumann & DeSchepper, 1992). Thus, the implementation of inhibition takes time.…”

Section: A Selective Inhibition Model Of Selective Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%