Search

Under certain conditions, the retrieval of some information can increase the recall of other information, a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced facilitation. Chan (Journal of Memory and Language 61:153-170, 2009) proposed two moderating factors to account for why retrieval causes facilitation in some situations and forgetting in others: (1) integration at the time of encoding and (2) the delay between retrieval practice and final test. Chan found a 9-11% facilitation effect when the materials were well integrated and the final test occurred after a 24-h delay. Two sets of experiments sought to replicate and extend Chan's study by examining retrieval-induced facilitation not only following a 24-h delay but after longer delays (i.e., 1 or 2 weeks). A meta-analysis including these replications and the original experiments was also conducted. The results provide additional evidence of retrieval-induced facilitation, with no evidence that the effect varies as a function of the final delay. However, the size of the effect was found to be somewhat smaller than previously observed.

Accumulating research has shown that acute exercise can enhance memory function. Although counterintuitive, acute exercise may also facilitate aspects of forgetting. Specifically, retrieving a subset of items from memory can facilitate the retention of retrieved items (retrieval practice) and inhibit the subsequent retrieval of non-retrieved items from the same category (retrieval-induced forgetting; RIF). Given that acute exercise has been shown to enhance cognition-related inhibition, acute exercise may facilitate RIF, which was evaluated in three experiments. In Experiment 1, a sample of 180 young adults completed either a control (N = 60), moderate-intensity acute exercise (N = 57), or vigorous-intensity acute exercise session (N = 63). Both acute exercise sessions lasted 20 min and occurred prior to the study list. Participants then completed a standard RIF protocol, with the final test occurring via a recognition task. Acute exercise, regardless of intensity, had no effect on RIF. Experiment 2 (N = 225) was similar to Experiment 1 but used a cued recall final test, and also showed no effects of acute exercise on RIF. In Experiment 3 (N = 158), two cued recall tests were implemented, with acute exercise occurring between the two tests. Acute exercise, but not a control scenario, preserved the RIF effect across the cued recall assessments. These findings suggest that acute exercise prior to study may not influence RIF, but when positioned between two recall assessments, acute exercise may preserve the RIF effect over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The retrieval of a subset of items can cause the forgetting of other, non-retrieved items, a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting. Initial work suggested that giving people the opportunity to restudy non-retrieved items following retrieval practice is sufficient to eliminate the effect of retrieval-induced forgetting, but more recent work has suggested otherwise. If retrieval-induced forgetting is not eliminated by restudy, then such a finding would have important implications for understanding the theoretical nature of retrieval-induced forgetting. It would suggest, for example, that retrieval-induced forgetting reflects more than the temporary reduction in the accessibility of non-retrieved items in memory. The two experiments reported here sought to clarify this issue, with the results suggesting that retrieval-induced forgetting can be eliminated by restudy. Indeed, retrieval-induced forgetting was eliminated by restudy even when the forgetting effect was produced by three rounds of retrieval practice instead of one round of retrieval practice. These findings are consistent with the idea that retrieval-induced forgetting, at least under the conditions of the current experiments, reflects a temporary reduction in the accessibility of non-retrieved items in memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four experiments examined participants' ability to remember their own ideas in a modified Alternative Uses Task. Participants were asked to generate uses for objects, and on half of the trials participants were then asked to think of more uses. Memory for the initial uses they generated was then tested via a cued-recall task. Results demonstrated that participants forgot their initial uses as a consequence of thinking of new uses (referred to as the thinking-induced forgetting effect), and this effect persisted even when participants chose the subset of uses they thought were the most creative and to be remembered. The only scenario in which uses were protected from forgetting was when they were required to use their uses as hints for generating more ideas. Together, these findings demonstrate that one's own ideas are susceptible to forgetting when additional ideas must be generated, indicating that thinking is a modifier of memory despite one's motivation to preserve their ideas.