Investigating storage and retrieval processes of directed forgetting: A model-based approach.

Abstract

Intentional forgetting of previously learned information is an adaptive cognitive capability of humans but its cognitive underpinnings are not yet well understood. It has been argued that it strongly depends on the presentation method whether forgetting instructions alter storage or retrieval stages (Basden, Basden, & Gargano, 1993). In Experiment 1, we compared the processes underlying the directed-forgetting effect in 2 mosts widely used presentation methods, namely the list-method and the item-method, and also differentiated between costs (i.e., poorer memory for to-be-forgotten information) and benefits (i.e., better memory for to-be-remembered information) of directed forgetting within both methods. Using a multinomial modeling approach (Riefer & Rouder, 1992; Rouder & Batchelder, 1998), our results showed that directed-forgetting benefits were due to better storage of to-be-remembered information in both methods. In line with current theorizing, list-method directed-forgetting costs occurred due to reduced retrieval of to-be-forgotten information. Item-method costs, however, occurred not only due to reduced storage, which is the dominant current view, but also due to reduced retrieval. In Experiment 2, we replicated the novel finding that retrieval processes contribute to item-method directed forgetting independent of recall-output order. Implications of these findings for current directed-forgetting theories are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

The effects of context in item-based directed forgetting: Evidence for “one-shot” context storage

“…The results do, though, serve to show that the processes or operations that underlie either differential encoding or attentional inhibition are focused on the target information, as the availability and influence of context information at retrieval is similar for both R and F items, regardless of whether context was encoded incidentally (Experiment 1) or intentionally (Experiment 2). This finding also has implications for the question concerning possible effects of item-based directed forgetting at retrieval (e.g., Nowicka et al, 2009;Rummel et al, 2016;Ullsperger et al, 2000;van Hooff et al, 2009;van Hooff, & Ford, 2011) because they indicate that any such effects are separate from, and not greatly influenced by, the reinstatement of context at retrieval.…”

“…Studies using electrophysiological measures have reported differences in cortical activity between R-cued and F-cued items, both at encoding and retrieval (e.g., Nowicka, Jednórog, Wypych, & Marchewka, 2009;Ullsperger, Mecklinger, & Muller, 2000;van Hooff, Whitaker, & Ford, 2009;van Hooff, & Ford, 2011). Multinomial processing modeling based on recall also suggests that item-based directed forgetting costs are due to both reduced storage and retrieval (Rummel, Marevic, & Kuhlman, 2016).…”

Remember to blink: Reduced attentional blink following instructions to forget

“…The directed forgetting effect in an item-method paradigm is attributed to selective rehearsal of remember over forget items (e.g., Basden et al, 1993;MacLeod, 1998;Taylor et al, 2017; although see Rummel et al, 2016). Positing a more rapid withdrawal of attention following forget word processing than following remember word processing is consistent with the view that this differential rehearsal does not arise solely from processes aimed at committing the remember words to long-term memory.…”

“…The directed forgetting effect in an item-method task is attributed to selective rehearsal of remember over forget items (e.g., Basden & Basden, 1998;Basden, Basden, & Gargano, 1993;MacLeod, 1998;Taylor, Cutmore, & Pries, 2018; although see Rummel, Marevic, & Kuhlmann, 2016). The notion is that participants attend to each word as it is presented and use maintenance rehearsal to refresh its representation within working memory while they await the memory instruction (Gardiner, Gawlik, & Richardson-Klavehn, 1994;Hsieh, Hung, Tzeng, Lee, & Cheng, 2009;Paz-Caballero, Menor, & Jiménez, 2004).…”

Selection for encoding: No evidence of better endogenous orienting following forget than following remember instructions

“…When the instructions consisted of a visual onset at center, the IOR difference 1 The effect of selective rehearsal on encoding is what makes the item-method paradigm relevant for our purposes. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the poorer subsequent memory for forget items than for remember items might not be accounted for entirely by mechanisms that operate at encoding-additional mechanisms may function to reduce forget item retrieval as well (e.g., Marevic & Rummel, 2018;Rummel, Marevic, & Kuhlmann, 2016; although see Taylor, Cutmore, & Pries, 2018). between remember and forget trials was eliminated.…”