Memory instruction interacts with both visual and motoric inhibition of return

Abstract

In the item-method directed forgetting paradigm, the magnitude of inhibition of return (IOR) is larger after an instruction to forget (F) than after an instruction to remember (R). In the present experiments, we further investigated this increased magnitude of IOR after F than after R memory instructions, to determine whether this F> R IOR pattern occurs only for the motoric form of IOR, as predicted, or also for the visual form. In three experiments, words were presented in one of two peripheral locations, followed by either an F or an R memory instruction. Then, a target appeared either at the same location as the previous word or at the other location. In Experiment 1, participants maintained fixation throughout the trial until the target appeared, at which point they made a saccade to the target. In Experiment 2, they maintained fixation throughout the entire trial and made a manual localization response to the target. The F> R IOR difference in reaction times occurred for both the saccadic and manual responses, suggesting that memory instructions modify both motoric and visual forms of IOR. In Experiment 3, participants made a perceptual discrimination response to report the identity of a target while the eyes remained fixed. The F> R IOR difference also occurred for these manual discrimination responses, increasing our confidence that memory instructions modify the visual form of IOR. We relate our findings to postulated differences in attentional withdrawal following F and R instructions and consider the implications of the findings for successful forgetting.

Selection for encoding: No evidence of greater attentional capture following forget than remember instructions

“…This null result is important because it converges with recent evidence that argues against an influence of memory instruction on the automatic activation of a spatially compatible response code by the cue (see Thompson et al, 2014;Thompson & Taylor, 2015). Indeed, if a forget instruction had weakened spatial code activation by the cue onset (e.g., Taylor & Fawcett, 2011), this would have been evident in subsequent target RTs any time a localization response was required, such as used in Experiment 1 (for which there was evidence of smaller cueing effects following forget instructions than remember instructions) and in Experiment 2 (for which there was a numerical pattern but no support for smaller cueing effects following forget instructions than remember instructions).…”

Remember to blink: Reduced attentional blink following instructions to forget

“…Interestingly, the intention to forget an unwanted study word also reduces the likelihood of forming an incidental memory for other items that appear during the encoding epoch . This, along with the observation that IOR is larger following a forget instruction than following a remember instruction (Fawcett & Taylor, 2010;Taylor, 2005;Thompson et al, 2014;Thompson & Taylor, 2015) is consistent with the interpretation of current results as implicating a removal of attentional resources from forget word processing. Interestingly, there is no indication that these resources are reallocated to other internal representations of the encoding epoch or become vulnerable to capture by other potential distractors (Taylor & Hamm, 2016).…”

“…A larger IOR effect following forget instructions than following remember instructions has proven to be robust (e.g., Fawcett & Taylor, 2010;Thompson et al, 2014;Thompson & Taylor, 2015) but does not constitute direct evidence that attention is withdrawn from forget item processing: IOR is conceived as an aftereffect of attentional withdrawal rather than as a measure of that withdrawal. Moreover, the inherently spatial nature of IOR raises the specter that a differential withdrawal of attention from forget and remember items is specific to situations in which study words are presented in peripheral spatial locations and does not represent a more general mechanism of intentional forgetting at encoding.…”

‘Forget me (not)?’ – Remembering Forget-Items Versus Un-Cued Items in Directed Forgetting

“…Somewhat reminiscent of the original repression account, recent behavioral evidence also demonstrates that active inhibitory processing is triggered by the forget cue in this paradigm (e.g., Fawcett and Taylor, 2010 ; Lee et al, 2013 ). Zacks and Hasher (1994) first proposed mechanisms of attentional inhibition to operate in item-method DF and a wealth of behavioral data now indicates that the instruction to forget in item-method DF amplifies effects of inhibition of return (IOR; Taylor, 2005 ; Taylor and Fawcett, 2011 , 2012 ; Thompson and Taylor, 2015 ). Although originally thought to affect only motoric IOR magnitude ( Taylor, 2005 ; Taylor and Fawcett, 2011 , 2012 ), greater slowing of return to target location following F-cue than following R-cue has recently been demonstrated in both motoric and visual IOR ( Thompson and Taylor, 2015 ).…”