Recognition-induced forgetting does not occur for temporally grouped objects unless they are semantically related

Maxcey, Ashleigh M.; Glenn, Hannah; Stansberry, Elisabeth

doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1302-z

Cited by 15 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Memory for flanking objects (.53) was significantly worse than memory for baseline objects (.69, t(43)=5.72, p<.001, d=.77, scaled JZS 3 =17,889), and memory for target objects (.84) was significantly better than baseline (.69, t(43)=4.94, p<.001, d=.86, scaled JZS=1,624). 4 The significantly lower memory for flanking objects relative to baseline objects is the signature recognition-induced forgetting effect, replicating previous studies using this paradigm (Maxcey, 2016;Maxcey & Bostic, 2015;Maxcey et al, 2016;Maxcey et al, 2017;Maxcey & Woodman, 2014;Rugo et al, 2017). These results mimic the difference-of-Gaussian shape (Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…The stimulus set was larger to add more trials to the test phase, increasing task difficulty. Our previous studies using superordinate categories have shown very high accuracy and no forgetting (Maxcey et al, 2017). Although Experiment 3 here is different in a number of ways, we increased task difficulty to increase the likelihood of forgetting.…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Here we employed the recognition-induced forgetting paradigm (Maxcey, 2016;Maxcey & Bostic, 2015;Maxcey, Bostic, & Maldonado, 2016;Maxcey, Glenn, & Stansberry, 2017;Maxcey & Woodman, 2014;Rugo, Tamler, Woodman, & Maxcey, 2017) to directly test whether the nature of the memoranda determines the forgetting mechanism. This paradigm is divided into three phases (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modality-specific forgetting

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large body of literature agrees that accessing a target memory appears to trigger a difference-of-Gaussian memory activation pulse under which the target representation is activated and categorically flanking items are suppressed and forgotten. The nature of the underlying forgetting mechanism is far from settled, with support for several theories of forgetting. Here we argue the debate is partly fueled by different forgetting mechanisms underlying the forgetting of different memoranda. We capitalized on the unique aspect of the recognition-induced forgetting paradigm to test forgetting of both pictures and words in identical recognition-practice and restudy tasks. We found that memory for pictures and words followed different patterns of forgetting. Specifically, forgetting was retrieval specific for words, in that forgetting occurred only when words were recognized, and not when words were merely restudied. However, forgetting was not retrieval specific for pictures, in that forgetting occurred both when pictures were recognized as well as restudied. Further, patterns of forgetting operated along different category-level groupings for pictures and words. Words grouped along the superordinate level were susceptible to forgetting but pictures were not. The strength of this design is the ability to directly compare forgetting for different memoranda, establishing that patterns of forgetting are modality specific. These findings demonstrate that the mechanisms underlying forgetting may differ as a function of the particular memoranda, emphasizing the need for examining forgetting in long-term memory across modalities.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modality-specific forgetting

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, recent work has shown that pictures stored in long-term memory are susceptible to recognition-induced forgetting (Maxcey, 2016; Maxcey & Bostic, 2015; Maxcey, Bostic, & Maldonado, 2016; Maxcey, Glenn, & Stansberry, 2017; Maxcey & Woodman, 2014). Specifically, practice recognizing some objects held in long-term memory (e.g., a red vase) leads to the forgetting of semantically related objects also held in long-term memory but not accessed (e.g., a blue vase).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore it is hard to imagine how one would conduct a retrieval -induced forgetting study with faces. Second, recent evidence demonstrated that temporally grouped objects that belong to a scene (e.g., a cow and a tractor belong to a “farm” scene) do not suffer recognition-induced forgetting, suggesting that not all stimuli that can be semantically grouped together are susceptible to recognition-induced forgetting (Maxcey et al, 2017). Third, a long line of evidence demonstrates that long-term memory for pictures is fundamentally different than memory for words (Calkins, 1898; Durso & O’Sullivan, 1983; Gehring, Toglia, & Kimble, 1976; Hockley, 2008; Juola, Taylor, & Young, 1974; Kirkpatrick, 1894; Madigan, 1974; Münsterberg, 1894; Nelson, Reed, & McEvoy, 1977; Nelson, Reed, & Walling, 1976; Paivio & Csapo, 1973; Paivio, Rogers, & Smythe, 1968; Paivio, Yuille, & Madigan, 1968; Snodgrass & Burns, 1978; Snodgrass, Volvovitz, & Walfish, 1972; Snodgrass, Wasser, Finkelstein, & Goldberg, 1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition-induced forgetting of faces in visual long-term memory

Rugo

Tamler

Woodman

et al. 2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite over a century of evidence that long-term memory for pictures and words are different, much of what we know about memory comes from studies using words. Recent research examining visual long-term memory has demonstrated that recognizing an object induces the forgetting of objects from the same category. This recognition-induced forgetting has been shown with a variety of everyday objects. However, unlike everyday objects, faces are objects of expertise. As a result, faces may be immune to recognition-induced forgetting. However, despite excellent memory for such stimuli, we found that faces were susceptible to recognition-induced forgetting. Our findings have implications for how models of human memory account for recognition-induced forgetting as well as represent objects of expertise and consequences for eyewitness testimony and the justice system.

show abstract

Is working memory inherently more “precise” than long-term memory? Extremely high fidelity visual long-term memories for frequently encountered objects.

Miner¹,

Schurgin²,

Brady³

2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

33Long-term memory is often considered easily corruptible, imprecise and inaccurate, especially in 34 comparison to working memory. However, most research used to support these findings relies on 35 weak long-term memories: those where people have had only one brief exposure to an item. Here 36 we investigated the fidelity of visual long-term memory in more naturalistic setting, with 37 repeated exposures, and ask how it compares to visual working memory fidelity. Using 38 psychophysical methods designed to precisely measure the fidelity of visual memory, we 39 demonstrate that long-term memory for the color of frequently seen objects is as accurate as 40 working memory for the color of a single item seen 1 second ago. In particular, we show that 41 repetition greatly improves long-term memory, including the ability to discriminate an item from 42 a very similar item ('fidelity'), in both a lab setting (Exps. 1-3) and a naturalistic setting (brand 43 logos, Exp. 4). Overall our results demonstrate the impressive nature of visual long-term memory 44 fidelity, which we find is even higher fidelity than previously indicated in situations involving 45 repetitions. Furthermore, our results suggest that there is no distinction between the fidelity of 46 visual working memory and visual long-term memory, but instead both memory systems are 47 capable of storing similar incredibly high fidelity memories under the right circumstances. Our 48 results also provide further evidence that there is no fundamental distinction between the 49 'precision' of memory and the 'likelihood of retrieving a memory', instead suggesting a single 50 continuous measure of memory strength best accounts for working and long-term memory. 51 52 53 Miner, Schurgin, Brady: Repetition and long-term memory fidelity 2 Public Significance Statement 54Visual working memory appears to be based on persistence of perceptual representations in 55 visual cortex. By contrast, visual long-term memory depends critically on semantically 56 meaningful stimuli and is organized by categories and concepts. Does this mean visual long-term 57 memory is fundamentally incapable of storing as precise perceptual information as visual 58 working memory? In the current work, we show that after being shown multiple repetitions of 59 the same item, visual long-term memory can represent incredibly precise visual details. In fact, 60 after just 8 repetitions, visual long-term memory can be as precise as our very best visual 61 working memories. This provides evidence that there is not a fundamental distinction between 62 the fidelity of visual working memory and visual long-term memory. 63 64 Keywords: visual long-term memory; visual working memory; repetition; memory fidelity; 65 memory capacity 66 Miner, Schurgin, Brady: Repetition and long-term memory fidelity 3 Humans have remarkable visual long-term memory abilities, capable of storing thousands of 67 items (Standing, Conezio & Hyber, 1970) with high fidelity (Brady, Konkle, Alvarez & Oliva, 682008). Thus, while working...

show abstract

Recognition-induced forgetting does not occur for temporally grouped objects unless they are semantically related

Cited by 15 publications

References 42 publications

Modality-specific forgetting

Modality-specific forgetting

Recognition-induced forgetting of faces in visual long-term memory

Is working memory inherently more “precise” than long-term memory? Extremely high fidelity visual long-term memories for frequently encountered objects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About