Does taking multiple photos lead to a photo-taking-impairment effect?

The photo-taking-impairment effect is observed when photographed information is less likely to be remembered than nonphotographed information. Three experiments examined whether this effect persists when multiple photos are taken. Experiment 1 used a within-subjects laboratory-based design in which participants viewed images of paintings and were instructed to photograph them once, five times, or not at all. Participants' memory was measured using a visual detail test, and the photo-taking-impairment effect was observed when participants took multiple photos. Experiment 2 examined the photo-taking-impairment effect using a between-subjects design. Participants either photographed all of the paintings they saw once, five times, or not at all, before being tested on their memory for the paintings. The photo-taking-impairment effect was observed in both photo-taking conditions relative to the no photo baseline. Experiment 3 replicated this pattern of results even when participants who took multiple photos were instructed to take five unique photos. These findings indicate that the photo-taking-impairment effect is robust, occurring even when multiple photos are taken, and after nonselective photo-taking.

Relearning can eliminate the effect of retrieval-induced forgetting.

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.

Explanation can cause Forgetting: Memory Dynamics in the Generation of New Arguments.

Retrieval-induced forgetting is observed when the retrieval of target information causes the forgetting of nontarget information. The present study investigated whether similar dynamics occur in the context of generating arguments in the process of explanation. Participants studied arguments associated with several issues before attempting to think of new arguments pertaining to a subset of those issues. When given a later memory test, participants were less likely to recall the studied arguments if they had attempted to think of new arguments than if they had not. This argument-induced forgetting effect was observed regardless of whether participants attempted to generate arguments that either agreed or disagreed with the position of the arguments they studied. The effect was significantly reduced, however, and even numerically reversed, when participants generated arguments that were highly related to the studied arguments. This finding fits well with previous research on retrieval-induced forgetting, which has shown that the retrieval or generation of new information fails to cause the forgetting of old information when the two types of information are well integrated or semantically associated.

Retrieval-induced versus context-induced forgetting: Does retrieval-induced forgetting depend on context shifts?

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is the observation that retrieval of target information causes forgetting of related nontarget information. A number of accounts of this phenomenon have been proposed, including a context-shift-based account (Jonker, Seli, & Macleod, 2013). This account proposes that RIF occurs as a result of the context shift from study to retrieval practice, provided there is little context shift between retrieval practice and test phases. We tested both claims put forth by this context account. In Experiment 1, we degraded the context shift between study and retrieval practice by implementing a generative study condition that was highly similar to retrieval practice. We observed no degradation of RIF for these generated exemplars relative to a conventional study control. In Experiment 2, we conceptually replicated the finding of RIF following generative study, and tested whether context differences between each of the three phases affected the size of RIF. Our findings were again contrary to the predictions of the context account. Conjointly, the 2 experiments refute arguments about the potential inadequacy of our context shifts that could be used to explain either result alone. Overall, our results are most consistent with an inhibitory account of RIF (e.g., Anderson, 2003).

The role of test context in latent inhibition of conditioned inhibition: Part of a search for general principles of associative interference.

In two lick suppression experiments with rats, we assessed interference with behavior indicative of conditioned inhibition by a latent inhibition treatment as a function of test context. We asked what effect the test context has, given identical latent inhibition treatments in Phase 1 and identical conditioned inhibition trainings in Phase 2. In Experiment 1, an AAA versus AAB context-shift design determined that the latent inhibition treatment in Phase 1 attenuated behavior indicative of the conditioned inhibition training administered in Phase 2, regardless of the test context, which could reflect a failure to either acquire or express conditioned inhibition. In Experiment 2, an ABA versus ABB design showed that test performance in Contexts A and B reflected the treatments that had been administered in those contexts (i.e., conditioned inhibition was observed in Context B but not A), which could reflect either the context specificity of either latent inhibition or conditioned inhibition. In either case, latent inhibition of conditioned inhibition training in at least some situations was seen to reflect an expression deficit rather than an acquisition deficit. These data, in conjunction with prior reports, suggest that latent inhibition is relatively specific to the context in which it was administered, whereas conditioned inhibition is specific to its training context only when it is the second-learned relationship concerning the target cue. These experiments are part of a larger effort to delineate control by the test context of two-phase associative interference, as a function of the nature of target training and the nature of interference training.