https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/pdf/S1364-6613(14)00074-6.pdf

Neural mechanisms of motivated forgetting

http://raaijmakers.edu.fmg.uva.nl/PDFs/Raaijmakers%20and%20Jakab%20JML%202012.pdf

Rethinking inhibition theory: On the problematic status of the inhibition theory for forgetting

With the continued integration of technology into people's lives, saving digital information has become an everyday facet of human behavior. In the present research, we examined the consequences of saving certain information on the ability to learn and remember other information. Results from three experiments showed that saving one file before studying a new file significantly improved memory for the contents of the new file. Notably, this effect was not observed when the saving process was deemed unreliable or when the contents of the to-be-saved file were not substantial enough to interfere with memory for the new file. These results suggest that saving provides a means to strategically off-load memory onto the environment in order to reduce the extent to which currently unneeded to-be-remembered information interferes with the learning and remembering of other information.

Saving-Enhanced Memory The Benefits of Saving on the Learning and Remembering of New Information

Over the past century, psychologists have discussed whether forgetting might arise from active mechanisms that promote memory loss to achieve various functions, such as minimizing errors, facilitating learning, or regulating one's emotional state. The past decade has witnessed a great expansion in knowledge about the brain mechanisms underlying active forgetting in its varying forms. A core discovery concerns the role of the prefrontal cortex in exerting top-down control over mnemonic activity in the hippocampus and other brain structures, often via inhibitory control. New findings reveal that such processes not only induce forgetting of specific memories but also can suppress the operation of mnemonic processes more broadly, triggering windows of anterograde and retrograde amnesia in healthy people. Recent work extends active forgetting to nonhuman animals, presaging the development of a multilevel mechanistic account that spans the cognitive, systems, network, and even cellular levels. This work reveals how organisms adapt their memories to their cognitive and emotional goals and has implications for understanding vulnerability to psychiatric disorders.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-psych-072720-094140

Active Forgetting: Adaptation of Memory by Prefrontal Control

Daydreaming mentally transports people to another place or time. Many daydreams are similar in content to the thoughts that people generate when they intentionally try to forget. Thus, thoughts like those generated during daydreaming can cause forgetting of previously encoded events. We conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that daydreams that are more different from the current moment (e.g., in distance, time, or circumstance) will result in more forgetting than daydreams that are less different from the current moment, because they result in a greater contextual shift. Daydreaming was simulated in the laboratory via instructions to engage in a diversionary thought. Participants learned a list of words, were asked to think about autobiographical memories, and then learned a second list of words. They tended to forget more words from the first list when they thought about their parents' home than when they thought about their current home (Experiment 1). They also tended to forget more when they thought about an international vacation than when they thought about a domestic vacation (Experiment 2). These results support a context-change account of the amnesic effects of daydreaming.

/pdf/remembering-to-forget-the-amnesic-effect-of-daydreaming-1uecyl1l6k.pdf

Remembering to Forget: The Amnesic Effect of Daydreaming

The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide an up-to-date review of the twenty-first century research and theory on list-method directed forgetting (DF) and related phenomena like the context-change effect. Many researchers have assumed that DF is diagnostic of inhibition, but we argue for an alternative, noninhibitory account and suggest reinterpretation of earlier findings. We first describe what DF is and the state of the art with regard to measuring the effect. Then, we review recent evidence that brings DF into the family of effects that can be explained by global memory models. The process-based theory we advocate is that the DF impairment arises from mental context change and that the DF benefits emerge mainly but perhaps not exclusively from changes in encoding strategy. We review evidence (some new to this paper) that strongly suggests that DF arises from the engagement of controlled forgetting strategies that are independent of whether people believed the forget cue or not. Then we describe the vast body of literature supporting that forgetting strategies result in contextual change effects, as well as point out some inconsistencies in the DF literature that need to be addressed in future research. Next, we provide evidence—again, some of it new to this chapter—that the reason people show better memory after a forget cue is that they change encoding strategies. In addition to reviewing the basic research with healthy population, we reinterpret the evidence from the literature on certain clinical populations, providing a critique of the work done to date and outlining ways of improving the methodology for the study of DF in special populations. We conclude with a critical discussion of alternative approaches to understanding DF.

List-Method Directed Forgetting in Cognitive and Clinical Research: A Theoretical and Methodological Review

Intentional forgetting of actions: Comparison of list-method and item-method directed forgetting

Research suggests that manipulating the wording of the forget cue in list-method directed forgetting affects the magnitude of directed forgetting both in younger children (Aslan, Staudigl, Samenieh, & Bauml, in press) and in older adults (Sahakyan, Delaney, & Goodmon, 2008). This occurs when the forget cue overemphasises the importance of forgetting in the current context. The present experiment investigated whether de-emphasising forgetting affected the magnitude of list-method directed forgetting in college adults. Some participants received overt forget cues that explicitly instructed them to forget earlier studied items, whereas others received covert forget cues that implied forgetting by emphasising selective remembering (e.g., "you will only need to remember some of the items"). Results indicated equivalent directed forgetting for both types of cues. However, regardless of the type of cue received, participants who reported using specific forgetting strategies in response to the forget cue showed directed forgetting, whereas those that reported doing nothing did not show any effects. The results underscore that successful directed forgetting requires engagement of controlled processes.

The role of forget-cue salience in list-method directed forgetting

In 4 experiments, we examined whether metacognitive beliefs about item memorability influence item-method directed forgetting. In Experiment 1, participants studied loud and quiet items, which were subsequently cued as to-be-remembered (TBR) or to-be-forgotten (TBF). Typically, the volume of stimuli does not influence recall, although loud items are judged as more memorable than quiet items (Rhodes & Castel, 2009). In contrast, we found a recall advantage for loud items in directed forgetting, although this was observed for TBR items but not TBF items. The loud item advantage disappeared in Experiment 2, when we eliminated all TBF trials and instead inserted additional trials during which participants could engage in extra rehearsal of earlier presented items. In Experiments 3 and 4, a recall advantage for loud items was observed again when items were assigned a mixture of positive and negative values, but it did not emerge when items were assigned graded positive values. Overall, the results showed that the recall advantage for loud items emerges only in response to the need to forget some items. We propose 2 mechanisms to account for these results-either participants select to rehearse loud items as a controlled strategy that allows them to forget some items, or they have an unconscious preference for loud items that emerges only in response to the need to forget.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathaniel_Foster/publication/223981453_Metacognition_influences_item-method_directed_forgetting/links/0deec523b2c0c3efaa000000.pdf

Metacognition influences item-method directed forgetting

ABSTRACT Successful forgetting of recently-studied information has been shown to be positively correlated with eye movements [Lee, Y. (2018). Withdrawal of spatial overt attention following intentional forgetting: Evidence from eye movements. Memory (Hove, England), 26(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1378360]. We tested whether eye movements caused forgetting by manipulating instructions to move eyes following forget and remember cues in item-method directed forgetting. In Experiment 1, participants were instructed to move eyes to the periphery after TBF trials or to focus on the centre where the TBF word and cue had been presented. In Experiment 2, we manipulated eye movement instructions within participants such that on half of the TBR and TBF trials participants shifted their eyes to the periphery, and on the other half of the trials, participants focused on the centre of the screen. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with an added probe task which ensured participants were moving their eyes as instructed. Results overall showed eye movements did not increase directed forgetting. Instructing participants to shift or focus eyes did not interact with the effectiveness of directed forgetting. Furthermore, metacognitive measures collected during study indicated that participants are sensitive to the significant effects of directed forgetting, but – like recall – judgments were not affected by eye movement instructions. From these findings, we concluded that eye movements do not promote intentional forgetting.

Nathaniel L. Foster

Papers

List-Method Directed Forgetting in Cognitive and Clinical Research: A Theoretical and Methodological Review

Intentional forgetting of actions: Comparison of list-method and item-method directed forgetting

The role of forget-cue salience in list-method directed forgetting

Metacognition influences item-method directed forgetting

Instructions to shift eyes do not increase item-method directed forgetting