The role of mediators for the pretesting effect.

Taking a pretest (e.g., smoke - ?) before material is studied (smoke - fog) can improve later recall of that material, compared to material which was initially only studied. The goal of the present study was to evaluate for this pretesting effect the potential role of semantic mediators, i.e., of unstudied information that is semantically related to the study material. In all three experiments, subjects studied weakly associated word pairs (e.g., smoke - fog), half of which received a pretest. Subjects then either completed a recognition test (Experiment 1) or a cued-recall test (Experiments 2 and 3), during which they were presented with both the original study material and never-before-seen semantic mediators that were strongly related to the cue item of a pair (e.g., cigarette). Strikingly, presenting semantic mediators as lures led to higher false alarm rates for mediators following initial pretesting than study only (Experiment 1), and presenting semantic mediators as retrieval cues led to better recall of target items following pretesting than study only (Experiments 2 and 3). We argue that these findings support the elaboration account of the pretesting effect but are difficult to reconcile with other prominent accounts of the effect.

Repeated guessing attempts during acquisition can promote subsequent recall performance.

Taking a pretest before to-be-learned material is studied can improve long-term retention of the material relative to material that was initially only studied. Using weakly associated word pairs (Experiments 1 and 3), Swahili-German word pairs (Experiment 2), and prose passages (Experiment 4) as study material, the present study examined whether this pretesting effect is modulated in size when pretests are repeatedly administered during acquisition. All four experiments consistently showed the typical pretesting effect, with enhanced recall after a single guessing attempt relative to the study-only baseline. Critically, the pretesting effect increased in size when multiple guessing attempts were made during acquisition, regardless of whether the duration of the pretesting phase increased with the number of guesses (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) or was held constant (Experiment 3). The results of Experiment 4 also indicate that neither a single guessing attempt nor multiple guessing attempts easily induce the transfer of learning to previously studied but untested information. Together, the findings demonstrate that additional guesses can promote access to the pretested target material on the final test, suggesting that in educational contexts, extensive pretesting during acquisition may serve as an effective learning strategy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The pretesting effect thrives in the presence of competing information.

Taking a pretest (e.g., blanket - ?) before some target material (blanket - sheet) is studied can promote recall of that material on a subsequent final test compared to material which was initially only studied. Here, we examine whether such pretesting can shield the tested material from interference-induced forgetting, which often occurs when before final testing, related material is encountered. We applied a typical pretesting task but asked subjects, between acquisition and final testing of the target list (list 1), to study two additional lists of items with either completely new and unique pairs (e.g., atom - cell) or overlapping - and thus potentially interfering - pairs (e.g., blanket - sleep). Target-list recall on the final test showed a typical pretesting effect for unique pairs, but the size of the effect even increased for overlapping pairs, as recall of study-only pairs was impaired, whereas recall of pretest pairs was left largely unaffected. This held regardless of whether a low (Experiment 1) or high (Experiment 2) degree of learning was induced for the interfering material, suggesting that pretesting can indeed protect the tested material from interference. These findings indicate that pretesting could play a significant role in educational settings where information often needs to be retained in the presence of competing information.

How retrieval practice and semantic generation affect subsequently studied material: an analysis of item-level effects.

The forward testing effect (FTE) refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied material can facilitate recall of newly studied (critical) material. Such interim retrieval practice can also lead to a differential FTE, i.e., a more pronounced FTE for items at early than later serial positions in the critical material. The present study examined whether this differential FTE also holds with interim semantic generation of extra-list items, and whether it is influenced by study material. Consistent with prior work, the results of two experiments showed that both interim retrieval practice and interim semantic generation induce the general (list-level) FTE when unrelated study lists are applied, whereas retrieval practice only creates the effect with categorised study lists. Critically, however, the differential FTE was present in response to retrieval practice but absent in response to semantic generation. This pattern held regardless of which material was studied, thus experimentally dissociating the general (list-level) from the differential (item-level) FTE. The findings may suggest that retrieval practice, but not semantic generation, induces a reset of the encoding process which promotes attentional encoding such that a more pronounced FTE arises for early than middle and late serial positions in the critical list.

The Effects of Interspersed Retrieval Practice in Multiple-List Learning on Initially Studied Material.

The forward testing effect (FTE) refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied material can facilitate retention of newly studied material more than does restudy of the material. The goal of the present study was to examine how such retrieval practice affects initially studied, unpracticed material. To this end, we used two commonly applied versions of the FTE task, consisting of either three (Experiment 1) or five (Experiment 2) study lists. While study of list 1 was always followed by an unrelated distractor activity, study of list 2 (3-list version) or lists 2, 3, and 4 (5-list version) was followed by either interim restudy or retrieval practice of the immediately preceding list. After studying all lists, participants were either asked to recall the first or last study list. Results showed that, for both the three-list and five-list versions, interim retrieval practice led to a typical FTE, irrespective of whether unrelated or categorized study lists were used. Going beyond the prior work, interim retrieval practice was found to have no effect on initially studied, unpracticed material, regardless of the type of study material. The findings suggest that using interim retrieval practice as a study method can improve recall of the last studied list without incurring a cost for the initially studied material. Our results are difficult to align with the view that retrieval practice induces context change, but are consistent with the idea that retrieval practice can lead participants to employ superior encoding strategies.

The Mechanisms Underlying Interference and Inhibition: A Review of Current Behavioral and Neuroimaging Research.

The memory literature has identified interference and inhibition as two major sources of forgetting. While interference is generally considered to be a passive cause of forgetting arising from exposure to additional information that impedes subsequent recall of target information, inhibition concerns a more active and goal-directed cause of forgetting that can be achieved intentionally. Over the past 25 years, our knowledge of the neural mechanisms underlying both interference-induced and inhibition-induced forgetting has expanded substantially. The present paper gives a critical overview of this research, pointing out empirical gaps in the current work and providing suggestions for future studies.

Buildup and release from proactive interference - Cognitive and neural mechanisms.

Interference from related memories is generally considered one of the major causes of forgetting in human memory. The most prevalent form of interference may be proactive interference (PI), which refers to the finding that memory of more recently studied information can be impaired by the previous study of other information. PI is a fairly persistent effect, but numerous studies have shown that there can also be release from PI. PI buildup and release have primarily been studied using paired-associate learning, the Brown-Peterson task, or multiple-list learning. The review first introduces the three experimental tasks and, for each task, summarizes critical findings on PI buildup and release, from both behavioral and imaging work. Then, an overview is provided of suggested cognitive mechanisms operating on the encoding and retrieval stages as well as of neural correlates of these mechanisms. The results indicate that, in general, both encoding and retrieval processes contribute to PI buildup and release. Finally, empirical gaps in the current work are emphasized and suggestions for future studies are provided.

Does Amount of Pre-cue Encoding Modulate Selective List Method Directed Forgetting?

Prior work reported evidence that when people are presented with both a relatively short list of relevant information and a relatively short list of irrelevant information, a subsequent cue to forget the irrelevant list can induce successful selective directed forgetting of the irrelevant list without any forgetting of the relevant list. The goal of the present study is to determine whether this selectivity effect is restricted to short lists of information (six items per list), or if the effect generalizes to longer lists (12 items per list). In Experiment 1, we replicate the finding that selective directed forgetting can occur when short lists of relevant and irrelevant information are involved. Going beyond this replication, we show in Experiment 2 that such selectivity can arise both when shorter and when relatively long lists of items are used. The results are consistent with the view that selective directed forgetting can result from the action of a flexible inhibitory mechanism. They are less well in line with the view that selective cues to forget pre-cue information induce a change in participants' mental context.

Feedback at Test Can Reverse the Retrieval-Effort Effect.

The testing effect refers to the finding that retrieving previously encoded material typically improves subsequent recall performance more on a later test than does restudying that material. Storm et al. (2014) demonstrated, however, that when feedback is provided on such a later test the testing advantage then turns to a restudying advantage on subsequent tests. The goal of the present research was to examine whether there is a similar consequence of feedback when the difficulty of initial retrieval practice is modulated. Replicating prior research, we found that on an initial delayed test, recall of to-be-learned items was better following difficult than easy practice. Critically, however, providing immediate feedback on an initial delayed test reversed this pattern. Our findings are consistent with a distribution-based interpretation of how feedback at test modifies recall performance.

How delay influences search processes at test.

Delay-induced forgetting refers to the finding that memory for studied material typically decreases as the delay between study and test is increased. The results of 3 experiments are reported designed to examine whether this form of forgetting is primarily caused by interference effects or contextual drift effects when people engage in neutral distractor tasks during the delay. Response latency analysis was used to contrast predictions of the interference and the contextual drift view of the forgetting. The results demonstrated that prolonged delay between study and test of a list of items reduced both recall rates and mean response latencies. Because mean latency provides a reliable index of the size of people's mental search set at test, the findings suggest that prolonged delay impeded people's ability to include studied items into the search set. The results also showed that (a) mental context reinstatement before test can eliminate this effect, and (b) younger and older adults differ in their susceptibility to interference effects but show comparable delay-induced forgetting. The findings indicate that, with neutral distractor tasks, delay-induced forgetting is primarily mediated by contextual drift. Such drift reduces people's mental search set at test and, thus, decreases both recall rates and response latencies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

A (Preliminary) Recipe for Obtaining a Testing Effect in Preschool Children: Two Critical Ingredients.

The testing effect refers to the finding that retrieval of previously learned information improves retention of that information more than restudy practice does. While there is some evidence that the testing effect can already arise in preschool children when a particular experimental task is employed, it remains unclear whether, for this age group, the effect exists across a wider range of tasks. To examine the issue, the present experiments sought to determine the potential roles of retrieval-practice and final-test formats, and of immediate feedback during retrieval practice for the testing effect in preschoolers. Experiments 1 and 2 showed no testing effect in preschoolers when a free-recall task was applied during the final test, regardless of whether free recall (Experiment 1) or cued recall (Experiment 2) were conducted during retrieval practice. In contrast, if cued-recall tasks were used during both retrieval practice and the final test (Experiment 3), a reliable testing effect arose. Furthermore, the magnitude of the effect was dramatically enhanced when, in addition, immediate feedback was provided during retrieval practice (Experiment 4). The present findings suggest that cued-recall practice and test formats, as well as immediate feedback during practice, are crucial ingredients for obtaining the testing effect in preschoolers.

Selective directed forgetting in children.

When, after study of an item list, adults are cued to forget some of the list items and encode new information instead, such cuing often induces selective forgetting of the to-be-forgotten material without impairing recall of the other items. This study examined developmental trends in such selective directed forgetting by having second graders, sixth graders, and young adults study three successive lists of items and, after study of List 2, cuing them either to remember both List 1 and List 2 or to forget List 2 but remember List 1. Consistent with prior work, second graders exhibited no forgetting at all in response to the forget cue, whereas young adults selectively forgot List 2. Sixth graders showed still another pattern with forgetting of both List 1 and List 2, suggesting that the ability to selectively forget is still absent at this age level. Directed forgetting has often been attributed to the action of inhibitory control processes. On the basis of this view, the current finding that children during middle childhood do not yet show selective forgetting indicates that the control processes underlying selective directed forgetting mature into adolescence and early adulthood.

List-method directed forgetting: Evidence for the reset-of-encoding hypothesis employing item-recognition testing.

In list-method directed forgetting (LMDF), people are cued to forget a previously studied item list (List 1) and to learn a new list of items (List 2) instead. Such cuing typically enhances memory for the List 2 items, in both recall and (sometimes) item-recognition testing. It has recently been hypothesized that the enhancement effect for List 2 items (partly) reflects the result of a reset-of-encoding process. The proposal is that encoding efficacy decreases with an increase in study material, but the forget cue can reset the encoding process to make the encoding of early List 2 items as effective as the encoding of early List 1 items. An experiment is reported that examined the reset-of-encoding hypothesis with item-recognition testing, examining influences of items' serial learning position on the effects of the forget cue. Item-recognition tests were conducted separately for the two lists. Consistent with the reset-of-encoding hypothesis, the results showed strong enhancement effects for early List 2 items, but hardly any enhancement effects for middle and late List 2 items. Like in previous item-recognition studies, no cuing effects were found for List 1 items. The results support two-mechanism accounts of LMDF, which assume a critical role for a reset-of-encoding process for List 2 enhancement.

Retrieval practice can insulate items against intralist interference: Evidence from the list-length effect, output interference, and retrieval-induced forgetting.

This study sought to determine whether nonselective retrieval practice after study can reduce memories' susceptibility to intralist interference, as it is observed in the list-length effect, output interference, and retrieval-induced forgetting. Across 3 experiments, we compared the effects of nonselective retrieval practice and restudy on previously studied material with regard to these 3 forms of episodic forgetting. When study of an item list was followed by a restudy cycle, recall from a longer list was worse than recall from a shorter list (list-length effect), preceding recall of studied nontarget items impaired recall of the list's target items (output interference), and repeated selective retrieval of some list items attenuated recall of other nonretrieved items at test (retrieval-induced forgetting). In contrast, none of these effects arose when study of the list was followed by a nonselective retrieval cycle. The findings are consistent with a combination of contextual variability theory and a variant of study-phase retrieval theory that assumes that retrieval can create more distinct context features for retrieved items than restudy does for restudied items, thus reducing items' susceptibility to interference relative to restudy cycles. The findings add to the view that nonselective retrieval practice can stabilize and consolidate memories.

The contribution of encoding and retrieval processes to proactive interference.

Proactive interference (PI) refers to the finding that memory for recently studied (target) material can be impaired by the prior study of other (nontarget) material. Previous accounts of PI differed in whether they attributed PI to impaired retrieval or impaired encoding. Here, we suggest an integrated encoding-retrieval account, which assigns a role for each of the 2 types of processes in buildup of PI. Employing a typical PI task, we examined (a) the role of encoding processes in PI by recording scalp EEG during study of nontarget and target lists, and (b) the role of retrieval processes in PI by measuring recall totals and response latencies in target list recall. In addition, we measured subjects' working memory capacity (WMC). Behaviorally, the PI effect arose in both recall totals and response latencies, indicating PI at the sampling and the recovery stage of recall. Neurally, we found an increase in electrophysiological activities in the theta frequency band (5-8 Hz) from nontarget to target list encoding, indicating an increase in memory load during target list encoding. The results demonstrate that impaired retrieval and impaired encoding can contribute to PI. They also show that WMC affects PI. For both encoding and retrieval processes, PI was reduced in high-WMC subjects, suggesting that these subjects are able to separate target from nontarget information and create stronger focus on the target material.

List-method directed forgetting can be selective: evidence from the 3-list and the 2-list tasks.

When people are cued to forget previously studied irrelevant information and study new information instead, such cuing typically leads to forgetting of the precue information. But what do people forget if, before the forget cue is provided, both irrelevant and relevant information have been encoded? Using relatively short item lists, we examined in a series of three experiments whether participants are able to selectively forget the irrelevant precue information, when relevant and irrelevant precue items were presented subsequently in two separate lists (3-list task) and when the two types of items were presented alternatingly within a single list (2-list task). Selective forgetting of the irrelevant precue items arose in the 3-list task, independent of modality of item presentation and level of discriminability of the precue lists, and it arose in the 2-list task. The findings suggest that, at least with relatively short precue lists, participants may well be able to selectively forget irrelevant precue information when cued to do so. Implications of the results for theoretical accounts of list-method directed forgetting are discussed.

List-method directed forgetting: the forget cue improves both encoding and retrieval of postcue information.

In list-method directed forgetting, people are cued to forget a previously studied item list and to learn a new list instead. Such cuing typically leads to forgetting of the first list and to memory enhancement of the second, referred to as list 1 forgetting and list 2 enhancement. In the present study, two experiments are reported that examined influences of items' serial learning position in a list and the two lists' output order on list-method directed forgetting. The results show that list output order influences list 2 enhancement but not list 1 forgetting. The enhancement was higher when list 2 was recalled first than when list 1 was recalled first and, in both cases, was higher for early list 2 items than for middle and late list 2 items. In contrast, the forgetting was equally present for all list 1 items and did not depend on the two lists' output order. The findings suggest that two separate factors can contribute to list 2 enhancement: one (encoding) factor that is restricted to early list 2 items and does not depend on list output order, and another (retrieval) factor that pertains to all list 2 items and varies with the two lists' output order. A new two-mechanism account of directed forgetting is suggested that reconciles previous (encoding or retrieval) views on list 2 enhancement.