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

Abstract

We measured attentional orienting in an itemmethod-directed forgetting task. Words appeared singly, followed by an instruction to remember or forget. In Experiment 1, study words appeared at center; in Experiments 2 and 3, they appeared to the left and right. In all three experiments, there was a delay of 50 ms or 250 ms, after which a cue appeared to the left or right of fixation. This was followed at a fixed 100-ms stimulus onset asynchrony by a target in the cued or uncued location. Attentional capture was measured by evaluating the speed to localize (Experiments 1 and 2) or discriminate (Experiment 3) targets in cued versus uncued locations. A subsequent yes-no recognition test confirmed a directed forgetting effect. Even though attention is purported to withdraw more readily after forget instructions than after remember instructions, we obtained no evidence for the corollary: Attention is not more readily captured by events that follow forget instructions. A forget instruction must therefore impact attention only insofar as withdrawal is needed to instantiate the intention to forget, without instigating a longer lasting distractibility.

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

“…This would be the case, for example, if the attentional resources freed from unwanted forget item processing remained available for subsequent exogenous capture by sudden changes in the environment and/ or for endogenous allocation to other goal-directed activities. As we describe below, the question of whether a forget instruction frees exogenous attention for capture has already been answered in the negative (Taylor & Hamm, 2016). However, as we also describe, exogenous and endogenous attention are not simply different ways of orienting the same pool of attentional resources, but rather are two distinct attentional systems.…”

“…With respect to the exogenous attentional system, Taylor and Hamm (2016) tested the prediction that forget instructions (relative to remember instructions) make exogenous resources more available for capture by abrupt onsets in the visual periphery. Their rationale for doing so was based on an argument made by Taylor and Fawcett (2011), that a forget instruction initiates a withdrawal of exogenous, rather than endogenous, attention.…”

“…Taylor and Fawcett's (2011) argument for a differential withdrawal of exogenous attention from forget and remember items was admittedly post hoc. Nevertheless, it suggested prioritizing the exogenous attentional system in the search for downstream consequences of a forget instruction-hence, Taylor and Hamm's (2016) investigation. In their first experiment, Taylor and Hamm presented study words at center, and in a second and third experiment, they presented words to the left and right.…”

“…The larger the cueing effect, the more effective the cues are at orienting attention. Accordingly, Taylor and Hamm (2016) posited that if exogenous attention were more vulnerable to capture following forget instructions than following remember instructions, the cueing effect would be larger on forget trials than on remember trials. But this was not what they found.…”

Estrategias de aprendizaje, comprensión lectora y rendimiento académico en Educación Secundaria

“…Las primeras abarcan procesos de organización, transformación, elaboración, memorización, práctica o transferencia de información, las segundas incluyen el monitoreo activo (evaluación), la regulación y planificación del propio proceso cognitivo (Taylor & Hamm, 2016). Por último, las estrategias motivacionales, relativas a los factores de expectativas, valor y afectividad, suscitan cogniciones y emociones en el alumno con respecto a las acciones durante la ejecución, y por tanto, inciden en las estrategias cognitivas y metacognitivas a desarrollar (Mezzalira & Boruchovitch, 2014).…”