Repeatedly retrieving information from memory (Rp+ details) has been shown to induce forgetting of related, un-retrieved information (Rp- details) below a no retrieval-practice baseline (NRp details), termed retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF).1 Much is known about RIF in adults but little is know about RIF in children. There are two leading explanations of RIF in adults, cognitive inhibition, and cognitive interference. A cognitive inhibition explanation of adult RIF is strongly supported in the literature. Cognitive inhibition refers to the act of ceasing, interrupting, or suppressing mental actions.2 In RIF, the reduced recall Rp- details is argued to be due to inhibition of those competitors during attempted retrieval of Rp+ details. Cognitive interference refers to the mental intrusions and actions (e.g., thoughts, memories) that negatively influence or interfere with current, task-related activities,3 and can also explain the RIF pattern of results. Recall of strengthened Rp+ details, and baseline NRp details may produce enough interference to result in significantly reduced levels of recall for Rp- details. Adult RIF demonstrates cue independence - RIF persists even when a novel cue is used at recall.4 This suggests Rp- items are inhibited in general, not just in association to the cue as expected by an interference explanation.
Inhibition RIF
RIF
Original
Novel
Fruit – Orange Rp+: Or__ Fruit – Grapes Rp-
Fruit
What foods, or things that you could eat, do you remember studying?
Insect – Fly NRp Insect – Spider NRp
Insect
What different kinds of bugs do you remember studying?
RIF
NO RIF
Study
Retrieval Practice
Discussion
Method
Introduction
Interference Inhibition is rooted in the frontal lobe which is immature prior to the age of 7 and declines in functioning in older adulthood.5 Developmental differences in inhibition have been found using other cognitive tasks (e.g., directed forgetting,6). No study has employed a methodology that would allow one to distinguish inhibition-based RIF from interference-based RIF. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether or not kindergarteners’ RIF was a result of inhibition or interference by using a novel cue method of final recall.
Participants (Ps) 33 Kindergarteners (Mage = 5.38 years, SD = .30, 14 boys) tested, 2 excluded for failure to follow instructions.
Materials
Kindergartners demonstrate RIF when the original category cue is used at recall. RIF is eliminated in kindergartners when a novel cue is used; in other words, kindergartners’ RIF does not demonstrate cue independence.
Word lists. Two sets of 16 words (4 categories with 4 words/category in each set) and Providing a novel cue at recall overcomes interference between the accompanying images that were familiar to Kindergarteners.7 category cue and strengthened (Rp+) items resulting a baseline levels Recall cues. One original (e.g., Fruit) and one novel sentence cue (e.g., things that you could of recall for Rp- items. eat) per category. This release from RIF suggests that kindergarteners’ RIF pattern of Slideshows. Words and accompanying pictures were randomized within each category for results is due to interference mechanisms, rather than inhibitory ones. each set. Four orders of each category were then generated per set. Half of the slideshows presented the original cue RIF task first, followed by the novel cue task; the remaining Conclusions slideshows were presented in the reverse order. Although kindergartners’ recall demonstrates RIF following retrievalpractice, this is the first study to discern inhibition-based, from interference-based, RIF in this population.
Filler task. Jacob’s Shapes8 iPhone application.
Design A 2 (Cue Type [original cue, novel cue]) x 3 (Practice Type [Rp+, Rp-, NRp) completely within subjects design.
Procedure
Kindergartners’ RIF appears to be the result of interference mechanisms, rather than inhibitory once.
Future Directions
Ps completed 2 RIF tasks that followed the same procedure with the exception of the cue used Cue independence is considered to be diagnostic of inhibition in RIF,4 to aid final recall. however, alternate means of examining inhibition in RIF are available and should be evaluated. Ps were visually and verbally presented with each original cue and accompanying images one For example, according to the inhibitory account of RIF, retrievalat a time for 5s each (e.g., Fruit – Apple, Fruit – Orange, Fruit – Grapes, Fruit – Blueberry). specificity refers to the necessity of active retrieval-attempts in order Ps then completed a verbal retrieval-practice task on half of the items from half of the to induce forgetting.4 It is the mental competition that occurs within categories. The experimenter said the original cue and the first sound of the targeted item out categories (between targets and competitors) during retrieval attempts loud and Ps responded by stating the target out loud. that trigger the inhibitory mechanism responsible for RIF. Without retrieval-attempts, RIF should be eliminated. 2 min. of filler activity then occurred followed by either original cue, or novel sentence cue recall (e.g., What fruit words do you remember studying? What foods, or think that you could Adult RIF also demonstrates output interference independence, eat, do you remember studying?). where RIF persists regardless of the order of item output.9 Such methods of examination include recognition tests and category-stem completion tasks. 2 (Cue Type [original cue, novel cue]) x 3 (Practice Type [Rp+, Rp-, NRp]) RM ANOVA Although this study suggests that interference is responsible for Cue Type: F (1, 30) = .19, p = .668, ηp2 = .006 kindergartners’ RIF, the type of interference at work remains Practice Type: F (2, 60) = 94.80, p < .001, ηp2 = .760 2 = .203 unknown. Strength-based interference (items with stronger Cue Type × Practice Type: F (2, 60) = 7.65, p = .001, η 1 p activation [Rp+] are more likely to be outputted first, followed by 0.9 those with weaker activation [NRp, Rp-]), output interference (the Rp+ output of items leads to interference with remaining to-be-recalled 0.8 Rpitems), or both, could be influencing kindergartners recall. 0.7
Results
NRp
0.6
Studies in our lab are currently evaluating these remaining principles in a new kindergarten sample.
0.5 0.4
References
0.3
1.
0.2
2.
0.1
3.
0 Original Cue
Novel Cue
Poster present at the 33rd Banff Annual Seminar in Cognitive Science (BASICS) Meeting in Banff, AB, May 2nd – 3rd 2014; Contact
[email protected]
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Anderson, MC, Bjork, RA, & Bjork, EL (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (3), 1063-1087. Harnishfeger, KK (1996). The development of cognitive inhibition: Theories, definitions, and research evidence (pp.175-206). In FN Dempster & CJ Brainerd (Eds.) Interference and inhibition in cognition. Toronto, ON: Academic Press. Tomlinson, TD, Huber, DE, Rieth, CA, & Davelaar, EJ (2006). An interference account of cue0independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences, 106, 15588-15593. Cue Indepenednece Ref Frontal Lobe Ref Directed Forgetting development Ref Price Ref Jacob’s Shapes Ref Murray (2010) Jacob’s Shapes iPhone Application Output Interference RIF Ref
