scholarly journals On the relationship between the rate of learning and retrieval-induced forgetting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ádám Markója ◽  
Ágnes Szőllősi ◽  
Mihály Racsmány
Keyword(s):  
Memory Effect ◽  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Final Recall ◽  
Semantic Categories ◽  
Rate Of Learning ◽  
Induced Forgetting ◽  
Retrieval Session

AbstractA plethora of studies demonstrated that repeated selective retrieval of target items from semantic categories has an adverse memory effect on semantically-related memories, a phenomenon called retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). However, there is a range of boundary conditions for RIF. For instance, forming interconnections between target and competitors, long-term delay without sleep between practice and final recall, and the form of learning all attenuate the effect of selective practice on the accessibility of semantically-related competitors. The aim of the present research was to investigate the latent general preconditions behind the reductions of RIF. In Experiment 1 participants learned category-exemplar pairs with repeated study or combined study-full test sessions followed by a selective retrieval practice and a full cued-recall test. We found lower difference between performance on the non-practiced items from practiced categories (Rp-) and their baseline from unpracticed categories (Nrp-) suggesting a reduction in retrieval-induced forgetting. However, regression analysis revealed that this was possibly caused by the increased recall performance independently from the presence of an initial full retrieval session. Therefore, in Experiment 2 participants learned the same pairs through a study followed by two study, two test or combined study-test cycles. As the consequence of increased rate of learning we confirmed the complete absence of retrieval-induced forgetting with Bayes factor analysis. Our results suggest that the adverse memory effect of selective retrieval practice shows a non monotonic dependency on the strength of the mnemonic representations.

scholarly journals Auditory Distraction Eliminates Retrieval Induced Forgetting

2013 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 368-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Marsh ◽  
Patrik Sörqvist ◽  
C. Philip Beaman ◽  
Dylan M. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Semantic Category ◽  
Auditory Distraction ◽  
Inhibitory Process ◽  
Practice Phase ◽  
Final Recall ◽  
Target Category ◽  
Spoken Words ◽  
Induced Forgetting ◽  
Category Exemplars

The Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF) paradigm includes three phases: (a) study/encoding of category exemplars, (b) practicing retrieval of a sub-set of those category exemplars, and (c) recall of all exemplars. At the final recall phase, recall of items that belong to the same categories as those items that undergo retrieval practice, but that did not undergo retrieval practice themselves, is impaired. The received view is that this is because retrieval of target category-exemplars (e.g., “Tiger” in the category Four-legged animal) requires inhibition of nontarget category-exemplars (e.g., “Dog” and “Lion”) that compete for retrieval. Here, we used the RIF paradigm to investigate whether ignoring auditory items during the retrieval-practice phase modulates the inhibitory process. In two experiments, RIF was present when retrieval practice was conducted in quiet and when it was conducted in the presence of spoken words that were drawn from a different category to that from which the targets for retrieval practice were selected. In contrast, RIF was abolished when words that were either identical to, or merely semantically related to, the retrieval-practice words were presented as background speech. The results suggest that the act of ignoring speech can reduce inhibition of the non-practiced category-exemplars, thereby eliminating RIF, but only when the spoken words are competitors for retrieval (i.e., belong to the same semantic category as the to-be-retrieved items).

Exhaustion of the Executive Control Capacity Eliminates Retrieval Induced Forgetting

2021 ◽  
pp. 003329412110187
Author(s):  
Ceyda Tumen ◽  
Simay Ikier
Keyword(s):  
Executive Control ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Inhibition Mechanism ◽  
Practice Phase ◽  
Final Recall ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Concurrent Tasks ◽  
Induced Forgetting ◽  
The One ◽  
Prior Task

Retrieval Induced Forgetting (RIF) demonstrates that retrieval of information can lead to forgetting of related information. The standard RIF paradigm involves studying a certain number of category-exemplar pairs; thereafter, half of the exemplars from half of the categories are retrieved. Finally, all studied pairs are recalled. RIF is revealed when unretrieved exemplars from the retrieved categories are more poorly recalled than exemplars from the unretrieved categories. One explanation for RIF asserts that inhibition prevents interference from the exemplars of the same category during the interpolated retrieval practice phase, which leads to forgetting of these items at final recall. An ongoing debate concerns whether this inhibition requires executive control or whether it is automatic. If inhibition in RIF involves executive control, then a task that will exhaust this limited capacity should reduce or eliminate the RIF effect. The effects of concurrent tasks during the retrieval practice phase have been shown to reduce or eliminate RIF, however, to our knowledge, the effects of prior tasks on RIF has not been investigated. In the present study, in one condition, we conducted an exhaustive inhibition task before the retrieval practice phase and compared this condition to the one in which the prior task was non-exhaustive. Results showed that the RIF effect was eliminated when the prior task was exhaustive. The results supported the executive control view for the inhibition mechanism behind RIF and further showed that exhaustion of the executive control capacity can impair inhibition in subsequent tasks.

No Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Under Stress

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1356-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Koessler ◽  
Harald Engler ◽  
Carsten Riether ◽  
Johanna Kissler
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hormone Release ◽  
Final Recall ◽  
Stress Group ◽  
Memory Inhibition ◽  
Effects Of Stress ◽  
Induced Forgetting

Stress affects memory, yet no study has investigated the effects of stress on memory inhibition: Remembering not only facilitates later recall, but also inhibits retrieval of related material, a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting. We investigated the effects of stress on this mechanism, which is thought to adaptively guide memory selection. Participants learned categorized lists and were then exposed to either a psychosocial laboratory stressor or a cognitively challenging control treatment. They then actively retrieved parts of the previously learned material. Finally, memory for all initially learned items was tested. In the stress group, unlike in the control group, intervening retrieval practice did not impair final recall. Moreover, salivary Cortisol levels increased and psychological well-being decreased in the stress group only. Thus, psychosocial stress abolishes retrieval-induced forgetting. This effect may result from stress-induced hormone release from the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and may have implications for educational, legal, and clinical issues.

Retrieval-Induced Forgetting of Performed and Observed Bizarre and Familiar Actions

2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie J. Sharman
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
The Other ◽  
Type Experiment ◽  
Action Type ◽  
Induced Forgetting

To investigate whether people show retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) for bizarre and familiar actions that they performed or observed, three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, participants performed bizarre and familiar actions with different objects during learning (e.g., pencil: balance the pencil across the cup, sharpen the pencil). They repeatedly performed a set of the bizarre or familiar actions during retrieval practice. After a distracter task, participants’ cued recall was tested. Participants showed RIF for both bizarre and familiar actions. In Experiment 2, half of the participants performed the bizarre and familiar actions themselves; the other half observed the experimenter performing the actions. Replicating the results of Experiment 1, participants who performed the actions showed RIF for bizarre and familiar actions. In contrast, participants who observed the actions did not show RIF for either action type. Experiment 3 examined whether this lack of RIF for observed actions occurred due to a lack of active recall during retrieval practice; it did. Overall, the three experiments demonstrated RIF for both bizarre and familiar performed and observed actions. A distinctiveness account of the results is provided.

Does Item Difficulty Affect the Magnitude of the Retrieval Practice Effect? An Evaluation of the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Felipe Rodrigues de Lima ◽  
Sebastião Venâncio ◽  
Júlia Feminella ◽  
Luciano Grüdtner Buratto
Keyword(s):  
Recall Test ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Practice Effect ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Study Phase ◽  
Nonsignificant Trend ◽  
Final Test ◽  
Practice Phase ◽  
Effort Hypothesis

Abstract Retrieving information by testing improves subsequent retention more than restudy, a phenomenon known as the retrieval practice effect. According to the retrieval effort hypothesis (REH), difficult items require more retrieval effort than easier items and, consequently, should benefit more from retrieval practice. In two experiments, we tested this prediction. Participants learned sets of easy and difficult Swahili–Portuguese word pairs (study phase) and repeatedly restudied half of these items and repeatedly retrieval practiced the other half (practice phase). Forty-eight hours later, they took a cued-recall test (final test phase). In both experiments, we replicated both the retrieval practice and the item difficulty effects. In Experiment 1 (N = 51), we found a greater retrieval practice effect for easy items, MDifference = .26, SD = .17, than for difficult items, MDifference = .19, SD = .19, t(50) = 2.01, p = .05, d = 0.28. In Experiment 2 (N = 28), we found a nonsignificant trend—F(1, 27) = 2.86, p = .10, $$ {\upeta}_{\mathrm{p}}^2 $$ = .10—toward a greater retrieval practice effect for difficult items, MDifference = .28, SD = .22, than for easy items, MDifference = .18, SD = .21. This was especially true for individuals who benefit from retrieval practice (difficult: MDifference = .32, SD = .18; easy: MDifference = .20, SD = .20), t(24) = –2.08, p = .05, d = –0.42. The results provide no clear evidence for the REH and are discussed in relation to current accounts of the retrieval practice effect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document