Are stronger memories forgotten more slowly? No evidence that memory strength influences the rate of forgetting

Cohen-Dallal, Haggar; Fradkin, Isaac; Pertzov, Yoni

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200292

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In sharp contrast to the above-described studies showing no time-based forgetting during memory retention, supporting an interference-only approach to forgetting, several studies have found time-based forgetting across longer retention intervals. In particular, visual array studies using articulatory suppression have found time-based forgetting across a retention interval (Cohen-Dallal, Fradkin, & Pertzov, 2018; Woodman, Vogel, & Luck, 2012; Zhang & Luck, 2009). In visual array studies, two or more items are presented simultaneously for a brief period of time.…”

Section: Trace Decay and Verbal Rehearsal In Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a typical experiment, three to eight items are presented for roughly 750 ms. A few seconds later, participants are presented with either the entire array or a single item from the array and they must indicate whether or not an item has changed. In some variations of the task, participants must reproduce the color, orientation, or some similar feature of the memory item by moving the mouse to the proper position on a response slider/probe (e.g., Cohen-Dallal et al, 2018). In all variations of the task the retention interval between presentation and test is manipulated so that any time-based forgetting that exists can be observed.…”

Section: Trace Decay and Verbal Rehearsal In Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do familiar memory items decay?

Ricker¹,

Sandry²,

Vergauwe³

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a long-standing debate over whether the passage of time causes forgetting from working memory, a process called trace decay. Researchers providing evidence against the existence of trace decay generally study memory by presenting familiar verbal memory items for 1 s or more per memory item, during the study period. In contrast, researchers providing evidence for trace decay tend to use unfamiliar nonverbal memory items presented for 1 s or less per memory item, during the study period. Taken together, these investigations suggest that familiar items may not decay while unfamiliar items do decay. The availability of verbal rehearsal and the time to consolidate a memory item into working memory during presentation may also play a role in whether or not trace decay will occur. Here we explore these alternatives in a series of experiments closely modeled after studies demonstrating time-based forgetting from working memory, but using familiar verbal memory items in place of the unfamiliar memory items used to observe decay in the past. Our findings suggest that time-based forgetting is persistent across all of these factors while simultaneously challenging prominent views of trace decay.

show abstract

Section: Trace Decay and Verbal Rehearsal In Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trace Decay and Verbal Rehearsal In Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Do familiar memory items decay?

Ricker¹,

Sandry²,

Vergauwe³

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Visual working memory (VWM) is a fundamental human capacity that enables the encoding, storing, and retrieval of information in various cognitive tasks—such as reading, writing, language learning, and measures of fluid intelligence ( Engle, 2002 ; Engle, 2018 ; Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perring, 2008 ; Luck & Vogel, 2013 ). Although the very limited capacity of VWM has been thoroughly studied ( Cowan, 2001 ; Luck & Vogel, 1997 ), there is less research on forgetting in VWM (see, however, Cohen-Dallal, Fradkin, & Pertzov, 2018 ; Honig, Ma, & Fougnie, 2020 ; Mercer & Barker, 2020 ; Pertzov, Manohar, & Husain, 2017 ; Ricker, Sandry, Vergauwe, & Cowan, 2020 ; Schneegans & Bays, 2018 ; Zhang & Luck, 2009 ). Although most studies on forgetting have demonstrated temporal decay in VWM, some have not ( Blake, Cepeda, & Hiris, 1997 ; Magnussen, Greenlee, Asplund, & Dyrnes, 1990 ; Magnussen, Greenlee, & Thomas, 1996 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forgetting in visual working memory: Internal noise explains decay of feature representations

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The precision of visual working memory (VWM) representations decreases as time passes. It is often assumed that VWM decay is random and caused by internal noise accumulation. However, forgetting in VWM could occur systematically, such that some features deteriorate more rapidly than others. There exist only a few studies testing these two models of forgetting, with conflicting results. Here, decay of features in VWM was thoroughly tested using signal detection theory methods: psychophysical classification images, internal noise estimation, and receiver operant characteristic (ROC). A modified same–different memory task was employed with two retention times (500 and 4000 ms). Experiment 1 investigated VWM decay using a compound grating memory task, and Experiment 2 tested shape memory using radial frequency patterns. Memory performance dropped some 15% with increasing retention time in both experiments. Interestingly, classification images showed virtually indistinguishable weighting of stimulus features at both retention times, suggesting that VWM decay is not feature specific. Instead, we found a 77% increase in stimulus-independent internal noise at the longer retention time. Finally, the slope of the ROC curve plotted as z -scores was shallower at the longer retention time, indicating that the amount of stimulus-independent internal noise increased. Together these findings provide strong support for the idea that VWM decay does not result from a systematic loss of some stimulus features but instead is caused by uniformly increasing random internal noise.

show abstract

“…This is clearly a valid concern, but given how consistent the empirical findings seem to be, it also seems reasonable to proceed as if the dependent measure may have the appropriate measurement-scale properties over much of its range. This might be why the ANOVA-based approach to comparing the rate of forgetting across conditions remains a common practice to this day (e.g., Cohen-Dallal et al, 2018; Lombardi et al, 2018; Rivera-Lares et al, 2022; Staugaard & Berntsen, 2019). Yet even if one allows for the possibility of an interval measurement scale under those conditions, the absolute loss per unit time may not be the most theoretically informative way to quantify the rate of forgetting, and that is the issue I focus on in this article.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Absolute versus relative forgetting.

Wixted¹

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slamecka and McElree (1983) and Rivera-Lares et al. (2022), like others before them, factorially manipulated the number of learning trials and the retention interval. The results revealed two unsurprising main effects: (a) the more study trials, the higher the initial degree of learning, and (b) the longer the retention interval, the more items were forgotten. However, across many experiments, the interaction was not significant, a finding that is often interpreted to mean that the degree of learning is independent of the absolute rate of forgetting (i.e., the absolute number of items forgotten per unit time). Yet there is considerable tension between that interpretation and the fact that forgetting has long been characterized by a power law, according to which the absolute rate of forgetting is not a particularly meaningful measure. When the power function is fit to the same data, the results show that a higher degree of learning results in a lower relative (i.e., proportional) rate of forgetting. This raises an interesting question: which of the two definitions of “forgetting rate” (absolute vs. relative) is theoretically relevant? Here, I make the case that it is the relative rate of forgetting. Theoretically, the explanation of why a higher degree of learning is associated with a lower relative rate of forgetting may be related to why, as observed by Jost (1897) long ago, the passage of time itself is associated with a lower relative rate of forgetting.

show abstract

Are stronger memories forgotten more slowly? No evidence that memory strength influences the rate of forgetting

Cited by 10 publications

References 61 publications

Do familiar memory items decay?

Do familiar memory items decay?

Forgetting in visual working memory: Internal noise explains decay of feature representations

Absolute versus relative forgetting.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About