The relative roles of input and output mechanisms in directed forgetting

Jongeward, Robert H.; Woodward, Addison E.; Bjork, Robert A.

doi:10.3758/bf03198210

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When subjects were forced to retrieve both TBF and TBR items in Expriment 2, there was no ultimate difference in the strengths of those items in memory as indexed by final free recall and recognition. The results of Jongeward et al (1975) discussed at the beginning of this article, which apparently demonstrated a mystifying ability on the part of subjects to discriminate TBR and TBF items, no longer seem so mysterious if one assumes that the subjects in their experiment retrieved only the TBR items in response to the within-list cues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…First, as indicated above, we wanted to reduce or eliminate the additional rehearsal TBR items might have received in Woodward et al's (1973) experiment owing to the possible time-sharing of rehearsal. Given that such rehearsal is eliminated, it is possible that subjects will no longer be able to differentiate between TBR and TBF items in memory, although the results of the Jongeward et al (1975) Figure 1. Initial delayed-recall probability as a function of filled cue delay for the to-be-remembered (TBR) and to-be-forgotten (TBF) items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem is more severe in an experiment by Jongeward, Woodward, and Bjork (1975). In Jongeward et al's experiment, subjects were presented lists of 32 words, each of which consisted of eight 4-word sets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Constituent processes in the differentiation of items in memory.

Bjork¹,

Geiselman²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were designed to clarify the perplexing ability of subjects to discriminate between to-be-remembered (TBR) and to-be-forgotten (TBF) items in memory. After the presentation of each pair of words in a list, subjects were first required to solve one to four arithmetic problems and were then cued whether to remember or forget that pair. When subjects were free to use a remember (R) or forget (F) cue in any way they saw fit, their subsequent ability to differentiate TBR and TBF items was impressive, but when subjects were required to retrieve both TBR and TBF word pairs in response to an R or F cue, respectively, their subsequent ability to differentiate TBR and TBF items deteriorated. The results implicate within-list retrieval of TBR items as a potent tagging or strengthening operation that provides a basis on which those items may later be discriminated from TBF items. The "potency" of such events, in terms of their influence on later recall, depends in a clear-cut way on the "depth" (i.e., delay) of retrieval involved, but there are no such comparable effects on later recognition. It is critical to the reasonably efficient functioning of human memory that we be able to differentiate to-be-remembered information from to-be-forgotten information. In a variety of experiments on directed forgetting, in which cues denote which items are to be remembered and which items are to be forgotten, subjects have shown a remarkable ability to accomplish such differentiation, often under circumstances where items are cued arbitrarily and there is apparently no free time available to use those cues. A particular case in point is the itemby-item cuing procedure introduced by Woodward and Bjork (1971). In this procedure, items (typically, individual words)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constituent processes in the differentiation of items in memory.

Bjork¹,

Geiselman²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consider one example. In an experiment by Jongeward, Woodward, and Bjork (1975), subjects were presented lists of 32 words, each of which consisted of eight four-word sets. Each set of four words was presented one word at a time (2.3 sec per word).…”

Section: A Missing Mechanism?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disrupted retrieval in directed forgetting: A link with posthypnotic amnesia.

Geiselman¹,

Bjork²,

Fishman³

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

301

398

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certain reliable findings from research on directed forgetting seem difficult to accommodate in terms of the theoretical processes, such as selective rehearsal or storage differentiation, that have been put forward to account for directed-forx getting phenomena. Some kind of "missing mechanism" appears to be involved.In order to circumvent the methodological constraints that have limited the conclusions investigators could draw from past experiments, a new paradigm is introduced herein that includes a mixture of intentional and incidental learning. With this paradigm, a midlist instruction to forget the first half of a list was found to reduce later recall of the items learned incidentally as well as those learned intentionally. This result suggests that a cue to forget can lead to a disruption of retrieval processes as well as to the alteration of encoding processes postulated in prior theories. The results also provide a link between intentional forgetting and the literature on posthypnotic amnesia, in which disrupted retrieval has been implicated. With each of these procedures, the information that can be remembered is typically recalled out of order and often with limited recollection for when the information had been presented. It therefore was concluded here that retrieval inhibition plays a significant role in nonhypnotic as well as in hypnotic instances of directed forgetting. The usefulness of retrieval inhibition as a mechanism for memory updating was also discussed.

show abstract

“…As mentioned above, in order to devote effectively all processing to the TBR items following the forget cue, which will in turn result in the deactivation of the TBF cued items, the TBR and TBF items must be differentiated into sets (Bjork, 1970;Bjork & Bjork, 1996;Block, 1971;Elmes et al, 1970;Geiselman, 1975;Geiselman et al, 1983;Goernert & Larson, 1994;Jongeward, Woodward, & Bjork, 1975). Although not stated explicitly in original accounts of the retrieval inhibition mechanism in the directedforgetting task (cf.…”

Section: Decreasing Task Demandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task demands and age‐related differences in retrieval and response inhibition

Wilson

Kipp

Daniels

2003

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the role of task demands on children's ability to inhibit irrelevant information using a block‐cued directed‐forgetting task. Recall performance was compared in a block‐cued directed‐forgetting task in which task demands had been decreased by presenting blocks of semantically related words with that in which unrelated words were presented. Inhibition patterns of recall were found at a younger age in the task that contained the related words than in the task that contained the unrelated words. These results suggest that previous results charting the development of cognitive inhibition may not have been exclusively the product of the development of inhibition, but rather a product of both the difficulty of the task and the development of inhibition.

show abstract

The relative roles of input and output mechanisms in directed forgetting

Cited by 23 publications

References 9 publications

Constituent processes in the differentiation of items in memory.

Constituent processes in the differentiation of items in memory.

Disrupted retrieval in directed forgetting: A link with posthypnotic amnesia.

Task demands and age‐related differences in retrieval and response inhibition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About