Dataset Information

An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm.

ABSTRACT: Memory suppression is investigated with the no-think paradigm, which produces forgetting following repeated practice of not thinking about a memory [Anderson MC, Green C (2001) Nature 410:366-369]. Because the forgotten item is not retrieved even when tested with an independent, semantically related cue, it has been assumed that this forgetting is due to an inhibition process. However, this conclusion is based on a single stage to recall, whereas global memory models, which produce forgetting through a process of interference, include both a sampling and a recovery stage to recall. By assuming that interference exists during recovery, these models can explain cue-independent forgetting. We tested several predictions of this interference explanation of cue-independent forgetting by modifying the think/no-think paradigm. We added a condition where participants quickly pressed enter rather than not thinking. We also manipulated initial memory strength and tested recognition memory. Most importantly, learning to quickly press enter produced as much cue-independent forgetting as no-think instructions. Demonstrating the adequacy of two-stage recall, a simple computational model (SAM-RI) simultaneously captured the original cue, independent cue, and recognition results.

SUBMITTER: Tomlinson TD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2747165 | biostudies-other | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm.

Tomlinson Tracy D TD Huber David E DE Rieth Cory A CA Davelaar Eddy J EJ

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20090826 37

Memory suppression is investigated with the no-think paradigm, which produces forgetting following repeated practice of not thinking about a memory [Anderson MC, Green C (2001) Nature 410:366-369]. Because the forgotten item is not retrieved even when tested with an independent, semantically related cue, it has been assumed that this forgetting is due to an inhibition process. However, this conclusion is based on a single stage to recall, whereas global memory models, which produce forgetting th ...[more]

PMID: 19717438

Similar Datasets

Project description:Using the think/no-think paradigm (Anderson & Green, 2001), researchers have found that suppressing retrieval of a memory (in the presence of a strong retrieval cue) can make it harder to retrieve that memory on a subsequent test. This effect has been replicated numerous times, but the size of the effect is highly variable. Also, it is unclear from a neural mechanistic standpoint why preventing recall of a memory now should impair your ability to recall that memory later. Here, we address both of these puzzles using the idea, derived from computational modeling and studies of synaptic plasticity, that the function relating memory activation to learning is U-shaped, such that moderate levels of memory activation lead to weakening of the memory and higher levels of activation lead to strengthening. According to this view, forgetting effects in the think/no-think paradigm occur when the suppressed item activates moderately during the suppression attempt, leading to weakening; the effect is variable because sometimes the suppressed item activates strongly (leading to strengthening) and sometimes it does not activate at all (in which case no learning takes place). To test this hypothesis, we ran a think/no-think experiment where participants learned word-picture pairs; we used pattern classifiers, applied to fMRI data, to measure how strongly the picture associates were activating when participants were trying not to retrieve these associates, and we used a novel Bayesian curve-fitting procedure to relate this covert neural measure of retrieval to performance on a later memory test. In keeping with our hypothesis, the curve-fitting procedure revealed a nonmonotonic relationship between memory activation (as measured by the classifier) and subsequent memory, whereby moderate levels of activation of the to-be-suppressed item led to diminished performance on the final memory test, and higher levels of activation led to enhanced performance on the final test.

Project description:Previous picture-word interference (PWI) fMRI-paradigms revealed ambiguous mechanisms underlying facilitation and inhibition in healthy subjects. Lexical distractors revealed increased (enhancement) or decreased (suppression) activation in language and monitoring/control areas. Performing a secondary examination and data analysis, we aimed to illuminate the relation between behavioral and neural interference effects comparing target-related distractors (REL) with unrelated distractors (UNREL). We hypothesized that interference involves both (A) suppression due to priming and (B) enhancement due to simultaneous distractor and target processing. Comparisons to UNREL should remain distractor unspecific even at a low threshold. (C) Distractor types with common characteristics should reveal overlapping brain areas. In a 3T MRI scanner, participants were asked to name pictures while auditory words were presented (stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA] = -200 msec). Associatively and phonologically related distractors speeded responses (facilitation), while categorically related distractors slowed them down (inhibition) compared to UNREL. As a result, (A) reduced brain activations indeed resembled previously reported patterns of neural priming. Each target-related distractor yielded suppressions at least in areas associated with vision and conflict/competition monitoring (anterior cingulate cortex [ACC]), revealing least priming for inhibitors. (B) Enhancements concerned language-related but distractor-unspecific regions. (C) Some wider brain regions were commonly suppressed for combinations of distractor types. Overlapping areas associated with conceptual priming were found for facilitatory distractors (inferior frontal gyri), and areas related to phonetic/articulatory processing (precentral gyri and left parietal operculum/insula) for distractors sharing feature overlap. Each distractor with semantic relatedness revealed nonoverlapping suppressions in lexical-phonological areas (superior temporal regions). To conclude, interference combines suppression of areas well known from neural priming and enhancement of language-related areas caused by dual activation from target and distractor. Differences between interference and priming need to be taken into account. The present interference paradigm has the potential to reveal the functioning of word-processing stages, cognitive control, and responsiveness to priming at the same time.

Project description:Comparative effectiveness research (CER) calls for substantial changes in the way clinical research is conducted, interpreted and practically applied in the USA, in order to produce useful clinical evidence. Departing from classic efficacy and effectiveness research, the evolving CER paradigm requires structural and substantive innovations that address three basic questions: what works? for whom? and in whose hands? Addressing these questions will require fundamental changes in the approach to clinical research that include: the use of active treatments (or comparators) versus placebos in the comparisons of treatments, innovative or 'alternative' research methods, the specification and a priori design of studies to account for important subgroups, accounting for the nested nature of healthcare delivery in design and analysis of CER, the simultaneous study of multiple treatments or treatment modalities, the study of multiple outcomes (benefits and harms) for each treatment compared, and the reassessment of the value of different study designs in the hierarchy of collective 'evidence'. In order to aid individual providers and patients in making informed, personalized treatment decisions, guided by the best evidence possible, CER studies must generalize to a broad range of subgroups reflecting the spectrum of patients, providers and health systems that populate real-world practice settings. Without expansion in the scope, conduct and subsequent interpretation of clinical research reflected in the issues outlined above, CER will fall short of its potential for informing evidence-based practice and personalized medicine. The current paradigm for conducting, interpreting and applying clinical research does not meet the needs of optimal generalizability and application to individual physician-patient efforts to identify the most effective treatment, and therefore does not support the basic requirements of CER. The proposed changes should neither require decades nor exorbitant budgets to achieve. Using two examples, prostate cancer, and comparisons of single medications, we illustrated how the proposed changes in clinical research, matching strategy to each application, might be addressed.

Dataset Information

An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm.

Publications

An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets