Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0598853 (forgetting)
 3,232 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

According to the principle of relative-strength competition, stronger items in memory block the retrieval of weaker items. This principle, integral to many theories of forgetting over the years, derives much of its support from the list-strength effect (LSE), in which strengthening some items in a study list makes it more difficult to recall other items. Work in the retrieval-induced forgetting literature has challenged the existence of relative-strength competition, 1st by offering many examples of a null LSE and 2nd by proposing that extant observations of the LSE can be explained by retrieval inhibition. In the present study, a series of experiments produced a robust LSE in cued recall under conditions meant to control the contribution of retrieval inhibition. Simulations of the SAM-REM model of recall (K. J. Malmberg & R. M. Shiffrin, 2005) showed that a model based on relative-strength competition can accommodate both the presence and absence of an LSE. The empirical results and model simulations together make a case for the role of strength-based competition in forgetting.
 ...
PMID:The list-strength effect in recall: relative-strength competition and retrieval inhibition may both contribute to forgetting. 1921 91

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.
 ...
PMID:An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm. 2008 Jul 12

Participants studied category-exemplar pairs (FRUIT Cherry, FRUIT Grape) and then practiced some of the items (Cherry). In Experiment 1, practice that involved retrieving the item from memory suppressed recall of related items (Grape), a finding known as the retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) effect. In Experiment 2, practice that involved studying the item without retrieval produced no RIF effect. Both retrieval and nonretrieval practice facilitated the subsequent recall of practiced items (Cherry). The dissociation between "strengthening" of practiced items and forgetting of related items is thought to be evidence that RIF is the result of inhibition during earlier retrieval attempts rather than interference from competing memories at retrieval. However, simulations of the SAM-REM model show that competitor interference can account for this dissociation. Experiments 3-6 supported the predictions of the model by demonstrating that nonretrieval practice can produce the RIF effect under conditions that emphasize context encoding or increase the number of competitors.
 ...
PMID:Retrieval-induced forgetting in recall: competitor interference revisited. 2368 18

Strength independence refers to the assumption that in a retrieval-induced forgetting paradigm, the increase in performance for the practiced items (RP+) is independent of the decrease for the related and supposedly inhibited items (RP-). One way in which this assumption has been tested is by examining the correlation over subjects between these two measures. The finding that there is no such correlation has been taken as evidence for the inhibition account and against noninhibitory accounts of retrieval induced forgetting. We report several, large-scale simulation studies using a simplified version of the SAM model (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, Psychological Review, 88, 93-134, 1981). The results clearly show that such a noninhibitory model is not likely to predict a significant correlation, despite the fact that on the level of the predicted probabilities such a correlation is clearly present. Additional simulations show that this is a very general result and not specifically related to the SAM model that was used. We conclude that such correlations do not provide a good test for the strength independence assumption and will not be able to distinguish between inhibitory and noninhibitory explanations of retrieval-induced forgetting.
 ...
PMID:On testing the strength independence assumption in retrieval-induced forgetting. 2675 87