Retrieval-practice task affects relationship between working memory capacity and retrieval-induced forgetting.

Retrieving a subset of items from memory can cause forgetting of other items in memory, a phenomenon referred to as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). Individuals who exhibit greater amounts of RIF have been shown to also exhibit superior working memory capacity (WMC) and faster stop-signal reaction times (SSRTs), results which have been interpreted as suggesting that RIF reflects an inhibitory process that is mediated by the processes of executive control. Across four experiments, we sought to further elucidate this issue by manipulating the way in which participants retrieved items during retrieval practice and examining how the resulting effects of forgetting correlated with WMC (Experiments 1-3) and SSRT (Experiment 4). Significant correlations were observed when participants retrieved items from an earlier study phase (within-list retrieval practice), but not when participants generated items from semantic memory (extra-list retrieval practice). These results provide important new insight into the role of executive-control processes in RIF.

Retrieval monitoring is influenced by information value: the interplay between importance and confidence on false memory.

The perceived value of information can influence one's motivation to successfully remember that information. This study investigated how information value can affect memory search and evaluation processes (i.e., retrieval monitoring). In Experiment 1, participants studied unrelated words associated with low, medium, or high values. Subsequent memory tests required participants to selectively monitor retrieval for different values. False memory effects were smaller when searching memory for high-value than low-value words, suggesting that people more effectively monitored more important information. In Experiment 2, participants studied semantically-related words, and the need for retrieval monitoring was reduced at test by using inclusion instructions (i.e., endorsement of any word related to the studied words) compared with standard instructions. Inclusion instructions led to increases in false recognition for low-value, but not for high-value words, suggesting that under standard-instruction conditions retrieval monitoring was less likely to occur for important information. Experiment 3 showed that words retrieved with lower confidence were associated with more effective retrieval monitoring, suggesting that the quality of the retrieved memory influenced the degree and effectiveness of monitoring processes. Ironically, unless encouraged to do so, people were less likely to carefully monitor important information, even though people want to remember important memories most accurately.

Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages.

The present research assessed the potential effects of expecting to teach on learning. In two experiments, participants studied passages either in preparation for a later test or in preparation for teaching the passage to another student who would then be tested. In reality, all participants were tested, and no one actually engaged in teaching. Participants expecting to teach produced more complete and better organized free recall of the passage (Experiment 1) and, in general, correctly answered more questions about the passage than did participants expecting a test (Experiment 1), particularly questions covering main points (Experiment 2), consistent with their having engaged in more effective learning strategies. Instilling an expectation to teach thus seems to be a simple, inexpensive intervention with the potential to increase learning efficiency at home and in the classroom.

Examining the lag effect under incidental encoding: contributions of semantic priming and reminding.

Memory is better when repeated learning events are spaced than when they are massed (spacing effect), as well as when material is processed semantically than when it is processed graphemically (levels-of-processing effect). Examination of the relationship between levels of processing and spacing for both deeply and shallowly encoded items has shown a spacing effect for items processed deeply, but not shallowly. A semantic priming account of spacing was proposed to explain the interaction between levels of processing and spacing on memory. The current study manipulated levels of processing and the amount of spacing (lag) that occurred between repetitions of items that were incidentally encoded. Results from Experiments 1A and 1B revealed lag effects in test performance when items were deeply and shallowly encoded. Although these findings are inconsistent with a semantic priming account, they can be interpreted within a reminding account, which is explored in Experiment 2. Results from the second experiment indicate that bringing reminding under conscious control benefited items that were presented at a long lag but not at a shorter lag. Together, this study provides evidence that is difficult to accommodate with a semantic priming account of spacing and instead provides additional support for a reminding account suggesting that automatic and controlled processes may both underlie the reminding process.

False memory and importance: can we prioritize encoding without consequence?

Given the large amount of information that we encounter, we often must prioritize what information we attempt to remember. Although critical for everyday functioning, relatively little research has focused on how people prioritize the encoding of information. Recent research has shown that people can and do selectively remember information assigned with higher, relative to lower, importance. However, the mechanisms underlying this prioritization process and the consequences of these processes are still not well understood. In the present study, we sought to better understand these prioritization processes and whether implementing these processes comes at the cost of memory accuracy, by increasing false memories. We used a modified form of the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, in which participants studied DRM lists, with each list paired with low, medium, or high point values. In Experiment 1, encoding higher values led to more false memories than did encoding lower values, possibly because prioritizing information enhanced relational processing among high-value words. In Experiment 2, disrupting relational processing selectively reduced false memories for high-value words. Finally, in Experiment 3, facilitating relational processing selectively increased false memories for low-value words. These findings suggest that while prioritizing information can enhance true memory, this process concomitantly increases false memories. Furthermore, the mechanism underlying these prioritization processes depends on the ability to successfully engage in relational processing. Thus, how we prioritize the encoding of incoming information can come at a cost in terms of accurate memory.

The roles of working memory and intervening task difficulty in determining the benefits of repetition.

Memory is better when learning events are spaced, as compared with massed (i.e., the spacing effect). Recent theories posit that retrieval of an item's earlier presentation contributes to the spacing effect, which suggests that individual differences in the ability to retrieve an earlier event may influence the benefit of spaced repetition. The present study examined (1) the difficulty of task demands between repetitions, which should modulate the ability to retrieve the earlier information, and (2) individual differences in working memory in a spaced repetition paradigm. Across two experiments, participants studied a word set twice, each separated by an interval where duration was held constant, and the difficulty of the intervening task was manipulated. After a short retention interval following the second presentation, participants recalled the word set. Those who scored high on working memory measures benefited more from repeated study than did those who scored lower on working memory measures, regardless of task difficulty. Critically, a crossover interaction was observed between working memory and intervening task difficulty: Individuals with low working memory scores benefited more when task difficulty was easy than when it was difficult, but individuals with high working memory scores produced the opposite effect. These results suggest that individual differences in working memory should be considered in optimizing the benefits of repetition learning.