Retrieval-induced forgetting in recognition is absent under time pressure

Verde, Michael F.; Perfect, Timothy J.

doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0143-4

Cited by 33 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, the results from Experiments 1 and 2 have shown RIF for peripheral contextual information after RP of identity information. This pattern seems to agree with recent data suggesting that the contextual factors involved in recollection are crucial for obtaining RIF (Verde & Perfect, 2011). However, this general conclusion needs to be approached with some caution.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Incidental retrieval-induced forgetting of location information

2012

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Incidental retrieval-induced forgetting of location information

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second possible explanation addresses the role of context change in RIF (for speculations on the role of context in RIF, see Perfect et al, 2004;Verde & Perfect, 2011). Indeed, many researchers have speculated on the importance of context in recall paradigms (e.g., the SAM model; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, a growing body of literature challenges the dominant inhibition account (for a review, see Verde, 2012;e.g., Dodd, Castel, & Roberts, 2006;Jakab & Raaijmakers, 2009;Jonker & MacLeod, in press;Raaijmakers & Jakab, 2012;Verde & Perfect, 2011;Williams & Zacks, 2001), and call for a new theoretical explanation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less we forget: Retrieval cues and release from retrieval-induced forgetting

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieving some items from memory can impair the subsequent recall of other related but not retrieved items, a phenomenon called retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). The dominant explanation of RIFthe inhibition account-asserts that forgetting occurs because related items are suppressed during retrieval practice to reduce retrieval competition. This item inhibition persists, making it more difficult to recall the related items on a later test. In our set of experiments, each category was designed such that each exemplar belonged to one of two subcategories (e.g., each BIRD exemplar was either a bird of prey or a pet bird), but this subcategory information was not made explicit during study or retrieval practice.

show abstract

“…The argument is that when exemplars are presented on a final recognition test, they provide copy cues that cue the episodic representations of those items in a way that circumvents the shared categories, thus bypassing any form of associative interference from strengthened Rp+ items. Verde and Perfect (2011) argued, however, that the fact that retrieval-induced forgetting is observed on recognition tests does not necessarily provide support for cue independence. Dual-process accounts of recognition memory assume that recognition performance is influenced by familiarity and recollection (e.g., Yonelinas, 2002), and although familiarity may be context independent, recollection is likely to be context dependent and based on the retrieval or search for episodic details.…”

Section: Trajectorymentioning

confidence: 99%