Anticipatory Signatures of Voluntary Memory Suppression

Hanslmayr, Simon; Leipold, Philipp; Pastötter, Bernhard; Bäuml, Karl‐Heinz T.

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4703-08.2009

Cited by 80 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, direct suppression yielded little evidence of retrieval-related activity, whereas thought substitution did. Similar electrophysiological and behavioral effects of direct suppression have been found by others ( Hanslmayr, Leipold, Pastötter, & Bäuml, 2009 ;Hanslmayr, Leipold, & Bauml, 2010 ) .…”

Section: Direct Suppression Can Induce Negative Control Effectssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…found a 17% negative control effect in the prepared group, compared to a 3% effect in the unprepared group. In a related study that will be discussed more later, Hanslmayr et al ( 2009 ) found that when participants receive a warning cue about an upcoming Suppress trial, electrophysiological markers of episodic retrieval mode in right prefrontal cortex (Duzel et al, 1999 ) are signifi cantly reduced in preparation for the upcoming trial, and that the extent of this reduction predicts later negative control effects on the fi nal test. Final recall data for the same-probe ("same-cue") and independent-probe ("independent-cue") tests, from Bergstrom et al, 2009 .…”

Section: Advance Warning Enlarges the Effectmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Studies have used face-word pairs (Depue, Banich, & Curran, 2006 ;Hanslmayr et al, 2010 ;Hanslmayr et al, 2009 ) , word-face and word-place pairs (Detre, Natarajan, & Norman 2010 ;Huddleston & Anderson, in preparation ) , word-line-drawing pairs (Kim & Yi, 2008 ) , and face-scene pairs (Depue et al, 2006 ;Depue, Curran, & Banich, 2007 ;Depue, Banich, Burgess, Willcut, & Ruzic, 2010 ). For example, in a study by Depue et al ( 2007 ) , participants studied pairs composed of faces and complex scenes varying widely in content, and were trained on these pairs until they could recognize the scene that went with each face.…”

Section: Generalizes To Non-verbal Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Anderson

Huddleston

2011

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

151

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, research on forgetting has been dominated by the assumption that forgetting is passive, refl ecting decay, interference, and changes in context. This emphasis arises from the pervasive assumption that forgetting is a negative outcome. Here, we present a functional view of forgetting in which the fate of experience in memory is determined as much by motivational forces that dictate the focus of attention as it is by passive factors. A central tool of motivated forgetting is retrieval suppression, a process whereby people shut down episodic retrieval to control awareness. We review behavioral, neurobiological, and clinical research and show that retrieval suppression leads us to forget suppressed experiences. We discuss key questions necessary to address to develop this model, relationships to other forgetting phenomena, and the implications of this research for understanding recovered memories. This work provides a foundation for understanding how motivational forces infl uence what we remember of life experience.

show abstract

Section: Direct Suppression Can Induce Negative Control Effectssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Advance Warning Enlarges the Effectmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Generalizes To Non-verbal Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Anderson

Huddleston

2011

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

151

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A crucial assumption of Tomlinson et al's interference account is that new associations are built up during no-think trials, suggesting an increase in memory-related activity over repeated suppression trials. This suggestion contrasts with findings from neurocognitive studies reporting evidence for a down-regulation of memory-related neural activity during no-think trials (3,4). When no-think trials are compared with a no-recall fixation baseline (3), fMRI results show that suppression trials lead to decreases in hippocampal activity.…”

contrasting

confidence: 83%

Forgetting in the no-think paradigm: Interference or inhibition?

Bäuml¹,

Hanslmayr²

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When participants, after learning a set of paired associates (e.g., "plane-doctor"), are repeatedly asked to suppress the target ("doctor") upon presentation of its cue ("plane"), such suppression trials can cause later forgetting of the target information. Whereas the original account attributed such forgetting to inhibition of the suppressed memory (1), Tomlinson et al. (2) suggest that forgetting may arise as a result of interference at test. Tomlinson et al. argue that, although in opposition to task instructions, participants occasionally may sample the target during no-think training and then learn to associate this memory with the no-think response (i.e., "sitting quietly"). Later, at test, the newly learned association interferes with recovery of the target information, causing the observed forgetting.Tomlinson et al.'s account is in the tradition of global computational memory models, which assume that recall of memory traces occurs by means of a two-stage process, which includes initial sampling and a subsequent recovery stage. Although to date such memory models have placed interference effects alone at the sampling stage of recall, Tomlinson et al. allow interference to affect the recovery process as well. Assuming that the sampled memory of a target is an incomplete representation (e.g., "d_ct_r"), they suggest that, during no-think trials, participants learn to associate the sampled target memory with the no-think response, which then at test compete for conscious recall. Doing so, Tomlinson et al. generalize existing global memory models and provide an elegant, noninhibitory account of forgetting over a wide range of recall conditions. A crucial assumption of Tomlinson et al.'s interference account is that new associations are built up during no-think trials, suggesting an increase in memory-related activity over repeated suppression trials. This suggestion contrasts with findings from neurocognitive studies reporting evidence for a down-regulation of memory-related neural activity during no-think trials (3, 4). When no-think trials are compared with a no-recall fixation baseline (3), fMRI results show that suppression trials lead to decreases in hippocampal activity. Similarly, a recent eventrelated potentials study (4) reported a reduction in cued-recall positivity with increasing no-think trial repetitions that predicted the amount of no-think forgetting. Remarkably, memory-related neural activity was already down-regulated in anticipation of a suppression trial, suggesting a role of anticipation for no-think forgetting (5).When different measures of neural activity (fMRI, EEG) are used, the results from the two neurocognitive studies converge on the view that retrieval success is voluntarily down-regulated during suppression trials. These results support the inhibition view of no-think forgetting but appear incompatible with the suggested interference account, according to which memoryrelated activities during suppression trials should increase rather than decrease.

show abstract

“…Together with the results from the Bäuml et al (2008) study, the present results therefore suggest that alpha oscillations might be involved only if inhibitory mechanisms are triggered intentionally and/or operate on a list level. Future work examining episodic forgetting in paradigms in which forgetting is intentional and occurs on an item level (e.g., think/no-think paradigm; Anderson & Green, 2001;Bergström, de Fockert, & RichardsonKlavehn, 2009;Hanslmayr, Leipold, Pastötter, & Bäuml, 2009) thus might improve our understanding of the role of alpha oscillations for episodic inhibition.…”

Section: Alternative Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theta oscillations predict the detrimental effects of memory retrieval

Hanslmayr

Staudigl

Aslan

et al. 2010

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieving a target item from episodic memory typically enhances later memory for the retrieved item but causes forgetting of competing irrelevant memories. This finding is termed retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) and is assumed to be the consequence of an inhibitory mechanism resolving retrieval competition. In the present study, we examined brain oscillatory processes related to RIF, as induced by competitive memory retrieval. Contrasting a competitive with a noncompetitive retrieval condition, we found a stronger increase in early evoked theta (4-7 Hz) activity, which specifically predicted RIF, but not retrieval-induced enhancement. Within the cognitive framework of RIF, these findings suggest that theta oscillations reflect arising interference and its resolution during competitive retrieval in episodic memory. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://cabn.psychonomic -journals.org/content/supplemental.

show abstract

Anticipatory Signatures of Voluntary Memory Suppression

Cited by 80 publications

References 22 publications

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Forgetting in the no-think paradigm: Interference or inhibition?

Theta oscillations predict the detrimental effects of memory retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About