List-method directed forgetting: The forget cue improves both encoding and retrieval of postcue information
Citations
104 citations
84 citations
Cites result from "List-method directed forgetting: Th..."
...Although recall levels increased from the first to the second block, p = .001, thus replicating a recent finding by Pastötter et al. (2012), this effect did not vary with condition, F(2,22) < 1....
[...]
76 citations
Cites background or result from "List-method directed forgetting: Th..."
...However, a recent meta-analysis of list-method DF studies that included both forget and remember groups did not support this notion; initiating retrieval with L2 did not exaggerate the magnitude of DF costs, although it made it easier to detect the DF benefits (Pastötter et al., 2012)....
[...]
...We identified five published DF studies that examined serial position functions in DF (Geiselman et al., 1983; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
...However, Pastötter et al. (2012) showed that retrieving L2 first does not increase the magnitude of forgetting....
[...]
...Such measures include investigations of serial position functions (Geiselman, Bjork, & Fishman, 1983; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009; Sheard & MacLeod, 2005), intrusion errors (Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Sahakyan & Delaney, 2010; Spillers & Unsworth, 2011), recall latencies, which indicate an average time point in the recall period when responses were emitted (Spillers & Unsworth, 2011; Unsworth, Spillers, & Brewer, 2012), first response functions, which provide a measure of where in the list participants initiate their recall (e....
[...]
...…measures include investigations of serial position functions (Geiselman, Bjork, & Fishman, 1983; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009; Sheard & MacLeod, 2005), intrusion errors (Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Sahakyan & Delaney, 2010;…...
[...]
30 citations
29 citations
Cites methods or result from "List-method directed forgetting: Th..."
...No analyses were performed in the present work to look at the putative benefit of forgetting List 1 over List 2 recall, since List 2 was always tested the latest and this has been shown to significantly lessen List 2 enhancement (Pastötter et al., 2012)....
[...]
...Finally, we looked at List 2 performance to examine if, as it has been found with the non-selective LM-DF procedure (Pastötter and Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012), the benefit for List 2 items after the instruction to forget is restricted to early serial positions when List 1 is tested first....
[...]
...…the present findings are partially in line with those from previous LM-DF studies showing that when List 1 is tested first, the enhancement of List 2 items that is associated with the instruction to forget only affects the early studied items (Pastötter and Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012)....
[...]
...Hence, the present findings are partially in line with those from previous LM-DF studies showing that when List 1 is tested first, the enhancement of List 2 items that is associated with the instruction to forget only affects the early studied items (Pastötter and Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012)....
[...]
...According with Pastötter et al. (2012), List 2 enhancement should mainly arise when List 2 is retrieved before List 1....
[...]
References
9,769 citations
"List-method directed forgetting: Th..." refers methods in this paper
...In all calculations and procedures for categorical model fitting, we followed the approach by Hedges and Olkin (1985). For each study, weighted effect sizes of list 2 enhance-...
[...]
...In all calculations and procedures for categorical model fitting, we followed the approach by Hedges and Olkin (1985)....
[...]
7,063 citations
392 citations
"List-method directed forgetting: Th..." refers background or result in this paper
...Second, because all list 2 items should benefit from the cueinduced reduction in list 1 interference (Davelaar et al., 2005; Neath & Brown, 2006), we expected list 2 enhancement to be present for all list 2 items when list 2 was recalled first; in particular, if both general interference reduction…...
[...]
...Additionally, however, it assumes that, by inhibiting the list 1 context, the forget cue causes interference reduction for all list 2 items and, thus, can improve retrieval of these items at test (see Davelaar et al., 2005; Neath & Brown, 2006)....
[...]
...Second, because all list 2 items should benefit from the cueinduced reduction in list 1 interference (Davelaar et al., 2005; Neath & Brown, 2006), we expected list 2 enhancement to be present for all list 2 items when list 2 was recalled first; in particular, if both general interference reduction for all list 2 items and reset of encoding of early list 2 items (e....
[...]
...Additionally, however, it assumes that, by inhibiting the list 1 context, the forget cue causes interference reduction for all list 2 items and, thus, can improve retrieval of these items at test (see Davelaar et al., 2005; Neath & Brown, 2006). Crucially, whereas the reset is supposed to reflect an encoding effect and to be effective regardless of list output order, the beneficial effect of interference reduction is supposed to reflect a retrieval effect that is present only if list 2 is recalled first and list 1’s interference potential is not reactivated by prior recall of the list. Thus, both reset of encoding and interference reduction are assumed to contribute to list 2 enhancement when list 2 is recalled first, whereas mainly reset of encoding but less interference reduction are assumed to contribute when list 1 is recalled first. The present view that two different factors may contribute to list 2 enhancement is consistent with Lehman and Malmberg’s (2009) recently proposed computational model of remembering and forgetting in multiple lists, which assumes that both interference reduction and differential...
[...]
...The general enhancement effect for list 2 items arising from interference reduction (Davelaar et al., 2005; Neath & Brown, 2006) thus should mainly be present if list 2 was recalled first but be largely absent if list 1 was recalled first....
[...]
390 citations
"List-method directed forgetting: Th..." refers background or methods in this paper
...The results of Experiment 1 show the two typical directedforgetting effects, list 1 forgetting and list 2 enhancement. As was expected, mean list 2 enhancement varied with list output order: Reliable list 2 enhancement arose only when list 2 was recalled first, but it did not arise when list 1 was recalled first, suggesting that recalling list 1 items first reinstated the list’s interference potential in the forget condition and, thus, reduced subsequent list 2 enhancement. The finding for list 2 contrasts with the results for list 1. Mean list 1 forgetting was present regardless of list output order. This held although list output order per se affected the results and list 1 recall was generally higher when list 1 was recalled first than when list 1 was recalled last. List output order thus seems to have different influences on the two directed-forgetting effects. Serial position analysis of the two lists showed higher levels of list 2 enhancement for early list 2 items than for middle and late list 2 items. This differential effect did not depend on list output order, although the items’ general amount of enhancement varied with output order. Indeed, enhancement for the middle and late list items was present only when list 2 was recalled first, but it was absent when list 1 was recalled first; the latter finding replicates the results from previous studies in which list 1 was recalled first (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009). Serial position analysis also showed that list 1 forgetting does not vary with the items’ serial position. List 1 forgetting arose for all list items, and it arose regardless of whether list 1 was recalled first or last. The finding replicates prior results by Sahakyan and Foster and by Pastötter and Bäuml (2010), who asked participants to recall list 1 first and list 2 second, and generalizes it to the reversed output order....
[...]
...block 3) revealed a main effect of cue, F(1, 81) 0 54.16, MSE 0 .02, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .40, and a main effect of block, F(2, 162) 0 7.49, MSE 0 .02, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .09, but no interaction between the two factors, F(2, 162) < 1. Indeed, recall increased across blocks (50.9% vs. 54.7% vs. 57.5%), and forget-cued participants showed higher list 2 recall than did remember-cued participants (59.6% vs. 49.2%). On the item level, list 2 recall rates as a function of cue and serial position are depicted in Fig. 3b. A 2 × 3 × 4 ANOVAwith the factors of cue (remember vs. forget), block (block 1 vs. block 2 vs. block 3), and serial position (bin 1 vs. bin 2 vs. bin 3 vs. bin 4) was calculated. Consistent with the list-level analysis above, the ANOVA revealed main effects of cue, F(1, 81) 0 60.19, MSE 0 .08, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .43, and block,F(2, 162)0 6.20,MSE 0 .08, p < .01, partial η(2) 0 .07. Going beyond the list-level analysis, the ANOVA revealed a main effect of serial position, F(3, 243) 0 14.03, MSE 0 .08, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .15, and a cue × serial position interaction, F(3, 243) 0 3.06, MSE 0 .08, p < .05, partial η(2) 0 .04; other interactions were nonsignificant, Fs < 1.70, ps > .12. The main effect of serial position indicates that recall for bin 1 items (66.5%) was higher than recall for bin 2 (52.1%), t(81) 0 8.29, p < .001, d 0 0.66, bin 3 (49.0%), t(81) 0 8.27, p < .001, d 0 0.77, and bin 4 (50.0%), t(81) 0 7.32, p < .001, d 0 0.76, items; all other differences were nonsignificant, ts(81) < 1.70, ps > .10. Due to the reliable cue × serial position interaction, post hoc analyses were calculated, indicating a beneficial effect of the forget cue for bin 1 (77.0% vs. 55.8%), t(81) 0 7.86, p < .001, d 0 0.87, bin 2 (56.1% vs. 48.1%), t(81) 0 2.74, p < .01, d 0 0.31, bin 3 (52.4% vs. 45.7%), t(81) 0 2.68, p < .01, d 0 0.26, and bin 4 (52.9% vs. 47.1%), t(81) 0 2.11, p < .05, d 0 0.23, items. Crucially, pairwise comparisons showed that enhancement for bin 1 items was larger than enhancement for bin 2, F(1, 81) 0 13.31, MSE 0 .03, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .14, bin 3, F(1, 81) 0 15.74, MSE 0 .03, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .16, and bin 4, F(1, 81) 0 15.70, MSE 0 .03, p < .001, partial η(2) 0 .16, items; all other Mem Cogn (2012) 40:861–873 867...
[...]
...According to the two-mechanism accounts of directed forgetting suggested by Sahakyan and Delaney (2003) and 0 ....
[...]
...On the basis of such dissociations, more recently, twomechanism accounts of directed forgetting have been suggested, according to which list 1 forgetting and list 2 enhancement arise from different mechanisms. In particular, it has been suggested that the forgetting reflects reduced accessibility of list 1 items at retrieval and the enhancement reflects a change in list 2 encoding. Sahakyan and Delaney (2003), for instance, proposed a two-mechanism account that attributes list 1 forgetting to a change in internal context and list 2 enhancement to a change in encoding strategy, with more elaborate encoding of list 2 items after a forget cue than after a remember cue....
[...]
...On the basis of such dissociations, more recently, twomechanism accounts of directed forgetting have been suggested, according to which list 1 forgetting and list 2 enhancement arise from different mechanisms. In particular, it has been suggested that the forgetting reflects reduced accessibility of list 1 items at retrieval and the enhancement reflects a change in list 2 encoding. Sahakyan and Delaney (2003), for instance, proposed a two-mechanism account that attributes list 1 forgetting to a change in internal context and list 2 enhancement to a change in encoding strategy, with more elaborate encoding of list 2 items after a forget cue than after a remember cue. Pastötter and Bäuml (2010) proposed a two-mechanism account that attributes list 1 forgetting to retrieval inhibition and list 2 enhancement to a reset of encoding processes....
[...]
359 citations
"List-method directed forgetting: Th..." refers background or methods in this paper
...…account claims that the forget cue induces a change in participants’ internal context, which then impairs list 1 recall, due to a mismatch between the context at encoding and the context at retrieval, and improves later list 2 recall, due to a reduction in interference (Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002)....
[...]
...First, on the basis of the view that the forget cue reduces list 1 items’ interference potential (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1983; Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002) and the finding that successful retrieval of list 1 items at test can reactivate the list’s interference potential (e.g., Bäuml & Samenieh, 2010;…...
[...]
...This holds for all accounts that assume that list 1 forgetting reflects reduced accessibility of the list items—for example, retrieval inhibition (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1983; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010) and the context change account (Sahakyan & Delaney, 2003; Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002)....
[...]
...Following Sahakyan and Kelley (2002), the model assumes that the forget cue causes a change in mental context between lists, which creates less overlap in contextual features between the two lists and, thus, reduces list 1 interference when list 2 items are recalled at test....
[...]