Retrieval-induced forgetting in recall and recognition of thematically related and unrelated sentences

Gómez‐Ariza, Carlos J.; Lechuga, M. Teresa; Pelegrina, Santiago; Bajo, M. Teresa

doi:10.3758/bf03193376

Cited by 54 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…RIF was observed in all cases. Moreover, RIF has been observed with propositional materials in which the competing facts were semantically unrelated to one another and to the retrieval practice targets (e.g., Anderson & Bell, 2001;Gómez-Ariza et al, 2005;MacLeod, 2002). RIF has even been found when there is only a single target and a single competitor, in which there could not possibly be inter-item associations with other studied competitors (e.g., Shivde & Anderson, 2001;Veling & van Knippenberg, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, the conclusion that item-specific cuing is a boundary condition on RIF has received little support in previous and subsequent work, which has provided many demonstrations of RIF on item-specific cuing tests including category-plus-letter stem cues (e.g., Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 2000;Anderson et al, 1994;Anderson & McCulloch, 1999;Aslan, Bäuml, & Pastotter, 2007;Bäuml, 2002;Bäuml & Hartinger, 2002;Johansson, Aslan, Bäuml, Gabel, & Mecklinger, 2007;Storm, Bjork, & Bjork, 2007, 2008Storm et al, 2006;), propositional-plus-unique-letter stem cues (Anderson & Bell, 2001;Gómez-Ariza et al, 2005), associate-plus-stem cued recall (Kuhl, Dudukovic, Khan, & Wagner, 2007), extralist semantic cues plus unique letter stems (Anderson, Green, & McCulloch, 2000;Johnson & Anderson, 2004;Levy et al, 2007), and letter stem cues in isolation (Bajo, Gómez-Ariza, Fernandez, & Marful, 2006). Nevertheless, Butler et al clearly failed to find RIF, creating a genuine puzzle.…”

Section: Experiments 4: Semantic Integration Effects Using Butler Et Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To focus retrieval on the target, inhibition is thought to suppress competing traces, with the lingering effects causing difficulties in recalling those competitors. This phenomenon, known as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF), has been observed in many contexts, including episodic memory (e.g., Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994;Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999), semantic memory (Blaxton & Neely, 1983;Johnson & Anderson, 2004), memory for word meaning (Johnson & Anderson, 2004;Shivde & Anderson, 2001), memory for factual knowledge (Anderson & Bell, 2001;Gómez-Ariza, Lechuga, Pelegrina, & Bajo, 2005;Macrae & MacLeod, 1999;Phenix & Campbell, 2004), autobiographical memory (Barnier, Hung, & Conway, 2004;Harris, Sharman, Barnier, & Moulds, 2010), eyewitness memory (Garcia-Bajos, Migueles, & Anderson, 2009;MacLeod, 2002;Migueles & Garcia-Bajos, 2006;Shaw, Bjork, & Handal, 1995), visuo-spatial memory (Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999), and even memory for phonological information retrieved during language production (Levy, McVeigh, Marful, & Anderson, 2007). RIF, thus, is a general factor contributing to memory lapses in a broad range of contexts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Semantic integration as a boundary condition on inhibitory processes in episodic retrieval.

Goodmon

Anderson

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recalling an experience often impairs the later retention of related traces, a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). Research has shown that episodic associations protect competing memories from RIF (Anderson & McCulloch, 1999). We report 4 experiments that examined whether semantic associations also protect against RIF. In all experiments, robust RIF occurred when there were few associations between practiced and nonpracticed sets, but RIF was abolished when there were many. The benefits of semantic integration were independent of episodic integration strategies and were not mediated by intentional use of the associations. Rather, these results establish a new boundary condition on RIF-semantic integration-that has a potent impact on the magnitude of RIF and may explain variability in the RIF phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments 4: Semantic Integration Effects Using Butler Et Amentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantic integration as a boundary condition on inhibitory processes in episodic retrieval.

Goodmon

Anderson

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sure enough, Anderson and Bell (2001) generalized RIF to fact retrieval by having participants study propositions such as ''The Actor is Looking at the Tulip'' and practice only a subset of facts related to a topic. As a result, participants were not only rendered less able to recall related, unpracticed facts (e.g., ''The Actor is Looking at the Violin'') after a delay, but also less likely to recall other learned facts in which the inhibited object participated (e.g., ''The Teacher is Lifting the Violin'') (see also Gomez-Ariza, Lechuga, Pelegrina, & Bajo, 2005;Macrae & MacLeod, 1999a).…”

Section: Inhibition In Selective Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Hulbert

Anderson

2008

Human Learning - Biology, Brain, and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…RIF has been studied with different types of materials involving both semantic, preexisting associations and newly constructed, episodic associations (e.g., Anderson, E. L. Bjork, & R. A. Bjork, 2000;Bajo, Gómez-Ariza, Fernandez, & Marful, 2006;Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999;Gómez-Ariza, Lechuga, Pelegrina, & Bajo, 2005). However, the impairment observed during RP procedures has always been tested on the items' central attributes, and there is no information on whether inhibition (like activation) also extends to peripheral features of the events in which the items are embedded.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental retrieval-induced forgetting of location information

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) has been studied with different types of tests and materials. However, RIF has always been tested on the items' central features, and there is no information on whether inhibition also extends to peripheral features of the events in which the items are embedded. In two experiments, we specifically tested the presence of RIF in a task in which recall of peripheral information was required. After a standard retrieval practice task oriented to item identity, participants were cued with colors (Exp. 1) or with the items themselves (Exp. 2) and asked to recall the screen locations where the items had been displayed during the study phase. RIF for locations was observed after retrieval practice, an effect that was not present when participants were asked to read instead of retrieving the items. Our findings provide evidence that peripheral location information associated with an item during study can be also inhibited when the retrieval conditions promote the inhibition of more central, item identity information.Keywords Retrieval-induced forgetting . Inhibition . Memory for location . Covert cuing Our memories are assumed to consist of multimodal attributes of the entities that we experienced in the past, including contextual information of various kinds (Barsalou, 1999). Thus, when we recall a past experience, we not only retrieve individual entities such as objects, people, or words, but also peripheral information associated with the particular experience with that entity. Thus, if we think of the last class we taught, we may recall the question that a particular student asked, but also the place where this student sat in the class or the fact that it was early in the afternoon. A general conception of how the memory system is able to automatically encode spatial, temporal, and frequency information was advanced by Hasher and Zacks (1979), and subsequent studies have provided more specific corroborating evidence, particularly in regard to the encoding of location information. For example, Köhler, Moscovitch, and Melo (2001), in an incidental-learning task for object locations, found that making judgments on attributes related to object identity enhanced memory performance not only when the identity of the objects was tested, but also when the retrieval task tested memory for the object locations. Similarly, Lachmair, Dudschig, De Fillippis, de la Vega, and Kaup (2011) showed that location information was activated when processing words. They asked their participants to perform lexical tasks on concepts that referred to entities associated with an up or down location (e.g., ROOF and ROOT). The results showed that responding was faster when the responses (e.g., the positions of the response keys) were congruent with the locations on the object to which they were related (e.g., ROOF above ROOT). This suggests that spatial location is automatically bound to item identity and is accessed when retrieving words and objects.In the present article, we aim to further illuminate...

show abstract

Retrieval-induced forgetting in recall and recognition of thematically related and unrelated sentences

Cited by 54 publications

References 46 publications

Semantic integration as a boundary condition on inhibitory processes in episodic retrieval.

Semantic integration as a boundary condition on inhibitory processes in episodic retrieval.

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Incidental retrieval-induced forgetting of location information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About