Literature DB >> 19717438

An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm.

Tracy D Tomlinson1, David E Huber, Cory A Rieth, Eddy J Davelaar.   

Abstract

Memory suppression is investigated with the no-think paradigm, which produces forgetting following repeated practice of not thinking about a memory [Anderson MC, Green C (2001) Nature 410:366-369]. Because the forgotten item is not retrieved even when tested with an independent, semantically related cue, it has been assumed that this forgetting is due to an inhibition process. However, this conclusion is based on a single stage to recall, whereas global memory models, which produce forgetting through a process of interference, include both a sampling and a recovery stage to recall. By assuming that interference exists during recovery, these models can explain cue-independent forgetting. We tested several predictions of this interference explanation of cue-independent forgetting by modifying the think/no-think paradigm. We added a condition where participants quickly pressed enter rather than not thinking. We also manipulated initial memory strength and tested recognition memory. Most importantly, learning to quickly press enter produced as much cue-independent forgetting as no-think instructions. Demonstrating the adequacy of two-stage recall, a simple computational model (SAM-RI) simultaneously captured the original cue, independent cue, and recognition results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19717438      PMCID: PMC2747165          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0813370106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  18 in total

1.  Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control.

Authors:  M C Anderson; C Green
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Forgetting our facts: the role of inhibitory processes in the loss of propositional knowledge.

Authors:  M C Anderson; T Bell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2001-09

3.  Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories.

Authors:  Michael C Anderson; Kevin N Ochsner; Brice Kuhl; Jeffrey Cooper; Elaine Robertson; Susan W Gabrieli; Gary H Glover; John D E Gabrieli
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-01-09       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Intentional forgetting can increase, not decrease, residual influences of to-be-forgotten information.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ligon Bjork; Robert A Bjork
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  A neural network model of retrieval-induced forgetting.

Authors:  Kenneth A Norman; Ehren L Newman; Greg Detre
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  ERP evidence for successful voluntary avoidance of conscious recollection.

Authors:  Zara M Bergström; Max Velmans; Jan de Fockert; Alan Richardson-Klavehn
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-03-12       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Forgetting in immediate serial recall: decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference?

Authors:  Klaus Oberauer; Stephan Lewandowsky
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Similarity and inhibition in long-term memory: evidence for a two-factor theory.

Authors:  M C Anderson; C Green; K C McCulloch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  The fSAM model of false recall.

Authors:  Daniel R Kimball; Troy A Smith; Michael J Kahana
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  Learning to fail: reoccurring tip-of-the-tongue states.

Authors:  Amy Beth Warriner; Karin R Humphreys
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.143

View more
  19 in total

1.  Effects of emotion and age on performance during a think/no-think memory task.

Authors:  Brendan D Murray; Keely A Muscatell; Elizabeth A Kensinger
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2011-04-25

2.  Classification aided analysis of oscillatory signatures in controlled retrieval.

Authors:  Nicholas Ketz; Randal C O'Reilly; Tim Curran
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Forgetting in the no-think paradigm: interference or inhibition?

Authors:  Karl-Heinz T Bäuml; Simon Hanslmayr
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Overcoming the effects of intentional forgetting.

Authors:  Melissa Lehman; Kenneth J Malmberg
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-02

5.  Multiple modes of clearing one's mind of current thoughts: overlapping and distinct neural systems.

Authors:  Marie T Banich; Kristen L Mackiewicz Seghete; Brendan E Depue; Gregory C Burgess
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 6.  A neuroanatomical model of prefrontal inhibitory modulation of memory retrieval.

Authors:  Brendan E Depue
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 8.989

7.  Briefly cuing memories leads to suppression of their neural representations.

Authors:  Jordan Poppenk; Kenneth A Norman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Moderate levels of activation lead to forgetting in the think/no-think paradigm.

Authors:  Greg J Detre; Annamalai Natarajan; Samuel J Gershman; Kenneth A Norman
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Memory asymmetry of forward and backward associations in recognition tasks.

Authors:  Jiongjiong Yang; Peng Zhao; Zijian Zhu; Axel Mecklinger; Zhiyong Fang; Han Li
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Do Not Respond! Doing the Think/No-Think and Go/No-Go Tasks Concurrently Leads to Memory Impairment of Unpleasant Items during Later Recall.

Authors:  Cornelia Herbert; Stefan Sütterlin
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.