To forget or not to forget: the effect of probability of test on directed forgetting.

Two experiments investigated how individuals use explicit memory cues that designate different probabilities of test. As in typical directed forgetting studies, subjects received words explicitly cued as having either a 0% or a 100% chance of being on a subsequent memory test (i.e. forget and remember cues, respectively). In addition, some words were explicitly cued as having the potential to be either forgotten or remembered (i.e. a 50% cue). Recall of 50% words was between that of 0% and 100% words. In addition, the presence of 50% words lowered recall of the 100% words compared to that of a control group that did not receive 50% words, but received the same number of 100% words. A think-aloud task indicated that these results were due to 50% words being treated like either 100% of 0% words at encoding. The results are discussed in terms of the effect of different probabilities of test on the strategic processing and representation of information.

Value transfer in a simultaneous discrimination appears to result from within-event pavlovian conditioning.

When pigeons acquire a simple simultaneous discrimination, some of the value acquired by the S+ transfers to the S-. The mechanism underlying this transfer of value was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1, pigeons trained on two simultaneous discriminations (A + B- and C +/- D-) showed a preference for B over D. This preference was reduced, however, following the devaluation of A. In Experiment 2, when after the same original training, value was given to D, the pigeons' preference for C did not significantly increase. In Experiment 3, when both discriminations involved partial reinforcement (S +/-), A + C- training resulted in a preference for B over D, whereas B + D- training resulted in a preference for A over C. Thus, simultaneous discrimination training appears to result in bidirectional within-event conditioning involving the S+ and S-.

Most directed forgetting in pigeons can be attributed to the absence of reinforcement on forget trials during training or to other procedural artifacts.

In research on directed forgetting in pigeons using delayed matching procedures, remember cues, presented in the delay interval between sample and comparisons, have been followed by comparisons (i.e., a memory test), whereas forget cues have been followed by one of a number of different sample-independent events. The source of directed forgetting in delayed matching to sample in pigeons was examined in a 2 x 2 design by independently manipulating whether or not forget-cue trials in training ended with reinforcement and whether or not forget-cue trials in training included a simultaneous discrimination (involving stimuli other than those used in the matching task). Results were consistent with the hypothesis that reinforced responding following forget cues is sufficient to eliminate performance deficits on forget-cue probe trials. Only when reinforcement was omitted on forget-cue trials in training (whether a discrimination was required or not) was there a decrement in accuracy on forget-cue probe trials. When reinforcement is present, however, the pattern of responding established during and following a forget cue in training may also play a role in the directed forgetting effect. These findings support the view that much of the evidence for directed forgetting using matching procedures may result from motivational and behavioral artifacts rather than the loss of memory.

Directed forgetting in animals.

Directed-forgetting research with animals suggests that animals show disrupted test performance only under certain conditions. Important variables are (a) whether during training, the cue to forget (F cue) signals nonreward (i.e., that the trial is over) versus reward (i.e., that reinforcement can be obtained) and (b) given that reinforcement can be obtained on F-cue trials, whether the post-F-cue response pattern is compatible with the baseline memory task. It is proposed that some findings of directed forgetting can be attributed to trained response biases, whereas others may be attributable perhaps to frustration-produced interference. It is suggested that directed forgetting in animals should be studied using procedures similar to those used to study directed forgetting in humans. This can be accomplished by presenting, within a trial, both to-be-remembered and to-be-forgotten material.