Leilani B. Goodmon
Bio: Leilani B. Goodmon is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The author has contributed to research in topics: Motivated forgetting & Forgetting. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 90 citations.
TL;DR: Two experiments investigated list-method directed forgetting with older and younger adults and showed that age-related differences in directed forgetting occurred because older adults were less likely than younger adults to initiate a strategy to attempt to forget.
Abstract: This article is about age-related differences in intentional forgetting of unwanted information. Imagine receiving medication and reading the directions on how to take it. Afterwards, the doctor tells you to take a different dosage at a different time from that printed on the label. Updating the directions may necessitate intentional forgetting of the earlier-learned information. The current article took one approach to examining this issue by examining age differences in the effectiveness of intentional forgetting using the popular list-method directed forgetting procedure invented by R. A. Bjork, LaBerge, and LeGrand (1968).
TL;DR: The results revealed that associative relationships that eliminated retroactive interference in the baseline condition also eliminated the directed forgetting costs and benefits, and it is proposed that these effects emerged from a combination of item and context strengthening induced by different associative directions.
Abstract: Two experiments examined how cross-list directional associations influenced list-method directed forgetting and the degree of interference observed on each list. Each List 1 item had a (a) bidirectionally related item on List 2 (chip potato), (b) forward association with an item on List 2 (chip --> wood), (c) backward association from an item on List 2 (chip <-- chisel), or (d) no relationship with List 2 items. The results revealed that associative relationships that eliminated retroactive interference in the baseline condition also eliminated the directed forgetting costs. In contrast, associative relationships did not affect List 2 recall in the forget group, which remained unchanged across experimental conditions. However, certain conditions reduced proactive interference in the remember group, thereby eliminating the benefits of directed forgetting. The directed forgetting costs and benefits were observed independently of each other. The authors propose that these effects emerged from a combination of item and context strengthening induced by different associative directions.
TL;DR: Together, these results support the context account and challenge the inhibitory interpretation of directed forgetting in list-method directed forgetting.
Abstract: In 5 experiments, the authors examined the influence of associative information in list-method directed forgetting, using the extralist cuing procedure (Nelson & McEvoy, 2005). Targets were studied in the absence of cues, but during retrieval, related cues were used to test their memory. Experiment 1 manipulated the degree of resonant connections from associates of the target back to the target. Experiment 2 varied the degree of connectivity of associates of the target. Experiment 3 varied the size of the associative neighborhood of the target. Experiment 4 varied the direct target-to-cue strength, and Experiment 5 varied the indirect strength between the cue and the target. Reliable directed forgetting impairment emerged in all experiments. Furthermore, directed forgetting reduced the effects of the associates contributing to the target activation strength (Experiments 1-2), and it also reduced the effects of the associates contributing to the cue-target intersection strength (Experiments 3-5). Together, these results support the context account and challenge the inhibitory interpretation of directed forgetting.
TL;DR: A neurobiological model of memory control can inform disordered control over memory and electrophysiological activity during motivated forgetting implicates active inhibition.
Abstract: Not all memories are equally welcome in awareness. People limit the time they spend thinking about unpleasant experiences, a process that begins during encoding, but that continues when cues later remind someone of the memory. Here, we review the emerging behavioural and neuroimaging evidence that suppressing awareness of an unwelcome memory, at encoding or retrieval, is achieved by inhibitory control processes mediated by the lateral prefrontal cortex. These mechanisms interact with neural structures that represent experiences in memory, disrupting traces that support retention. Thus, mechanisms engaged to regulate momentary awareness introduce lasting biases in which experiences remain accessible. We argue that theories of forgetting that neglect the motivated control of awareness omit a powerful force shaping the retention of our past.
TL;DR: It is argued here that the perirhinal cortex is a key node in a more extensive network mediating protosemantic associative memory, forming a cornerstone of pre-surgical decision making, and a frame for interpreting postoperative outcome.
Abstract: The idea that verbal and non-verbal forms of memory are segregated in their entirety, and localized to the left and right hippocampi, is arguably the most influential concept in the neuropsychology of temporal lobe epilepsy, forming a cornerstone of pre-surgical decision making, and a frame for interpreting postoperative outcome. This critical review begins by examining some of the unexpressed but inescapable assumptions of the material-specificity model: (i) verbal and non-verbal memory are unitary and internally homogenous constructs; and (ii) left and right memory systems are assumed to be independent, self-contained modules. The next section traces the origins of an alternative view, emanating largely from three challenges to these assumptions: (i) verbal memory is systematically fractionated by left mesial temporal foci; (ii) the resulting components are differentially localized within the left temporal lobe; and (iii) verbal and non-verbal memory functions are not entirely lateralized. It is argued here that the perirhinal cortex is a key node in a more extensive network mediating protosemantic associative memory. Impairment of this fundamental memory system is a proximal neurocognitive marker of mesial temporal epileptogenesis.
TL;DR: This paper proposed a tentative verbal theory based on the SAM/REM model that utilizes contextual variability and study-phase retrieval to explain the major findings, as well as predict some novel results.
Abstract: What appears to be a simple pattern of results—distributed-study opportunities usually produce better memory than massed-study opportunities—turns out to be quite complicated. Many “impostor” effects such as rehearsal borrowing, strategy changes during study, recency effects, and item skipping complicate the interpretation of spacing experiments. We suggest some best practices for future experiments that diverge from the typical spacing experiments in the literature. Next, we outline the major theories that have been advanced to account for spacing studies while highlighting the critical experimental evidence that a theory of spacing must explain. We then propose a tentative verbal theory based on the SAM/REM model that utilizes contextual variability and study-phase retrieval to explain the major findings, as well as predict some novel results. Next, we outline the major phenomena supporting testing as superior to restudy on long-term retention tests, and review theories of the testing phenomenon, along with some possible boundary conditions. Finally, we suggest some ways that spacing and testing can be integrated into the classroom, and ask to what extent educators already capitalize on these phenomena. Along the way, we present several new experiments that shed light on various facets of the spacing and testing effects.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review the claim that the inhibition theory provides a better account of forgetting than more traditional competition-based theories and conclude that the theoretical status of inhibition as an explanation for interference and forgetting is problematic.
Abstract: The standard textbook account of interference and forgetting is based on the assumption that retrieval of a memory trace is affected by competition by other memory traces. In recent years, a number of researchers have questioned this view and have proposed an alternative account of forgetting based on a mechanism of suppression. In this inhibition account, such forgetting is due to an inhibitory control process that operates whenever non-target information hinders the retrieval of a specific target item. It is assumed that the memory traces of these non-target items are suppressed or inhibited in order to overcome their interfering effects and it is claimed that this inhibition has a longer-lasting effect on the strength of the suppressed memory traces. In this paper we critically review the claim that the inhibition theory provides a better account of forgetting than more traditional competition-based theories. We discuss the explanations that have been proposed to account for retrieval induced forgetting, the think/no-think paradigm, directed forgetting, the part-list cuing effect, output interference and list-strength effects. We conclude that the theoretical status of inhibition as an explanation for interference and forgetting is problematic. We show that the claim that these findings cannot be explained by standard competition-based accounts is incorrect.
TL;DR: A new theoretical account of retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is presented together with new experimental evidence that fits this account and challenges the dominant inhibition account, and the role of context in remembering is emphasized.
Abstract: We present a new theoretical account of retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) together with new experimental evidence that fits this account and challenges the dominant inhibition account. RIF occurs when the retrieval of some material from memory produces later forgetting of related material. The inhibition account asserts that RIF is the result of an inhibition mechanism that acts during retrieval to suppress the representations of interfering competitors. This inhibition is enduring, such that the suppressed material is difficult to access on a later test and is, therefore, recalled more poorly than baseline material. Although the inhibition account is widely accepted, a growing body of research challenges its fundamental assumptions. Our alternative account of RIF instead emphasizes the role of context in remembering. According to this context account, both of 2 tenets must be met for RIF to occur: (a) A context change must occur between study and subsequent retrieval practice, and (b) the retrieval practice context must be the active context during the final test when testing practiced categories. The results of 3 experiments, which directly test the divergent predictions of the 2 accounts, support the context account but cannot be explained by the inhibition account. In an extensive discussion, we survey the literature on RIF and apply our context account to the key findings, demonstrating the explanatory power of context.