Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory

doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80039-7

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

Volume 10, Issue 4, August 1971, Pages 400-408

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80039-7 Get rights and content

Blocked presentation of categorized words followed by sequential recall of the items according to category produced a significant decline in word recall across the category output sequence. The output-interference effect was unaffected by either the removal of recency or the addition of an interpolated task between the input of the list and recall. The effect was dependent, however, on the size of the input categories and the amount of time allowed for recall. In addition, the effect was produced in a recognition task. The experiments were designed to differentiate among several alternative hypotheses; the results indicating a failure to edit the responses at the time of recall. The results were discussed in terms of a core and extra-core dichotomy due to organizational processes.

References (11)

CramerP.
Mediated priming of associative responses: The effect of time lapse and interpolated activity
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1966)
ArbuckleT.Y.
Differential retention of individual paired associates within a RTT “learning” trial
Journal of Experimental Psychology
(1967)
BattigW.F. et al.
Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut Category Norms
Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph
(1969)
CohenB.H. et al.
Cultural norms for verbal items in 43 categories
CramerP.
The determinants of mediated priming: Time interval, semantic and associative relationships
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1969)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (92)

EEG beta power increase indicates inhibition in motor memory
2020, International Journal of Psychophysiology
Citation Excerpt :
Item type (Rp+, Rp−, Nrp−, Nrp+) was manipulated within participants. Rp− items were tested before Rp+ items to preclude any output interference by Rp+ items (cf. Anderson et al., 1994; Roediger and Schmidt, 1980; Smith, 1971). Rp− items accordingly were compared to the first three Nrp items tested (Nrp−), whereas Rp+ items were compared to the last three Nrp items tested (Nrp+).
Beta power increase has been suggested to be an electrophysiological marker of response inhibition during voluntary action stopping. We examined whether beta power increase accompanies inhibition in human motor memory, focusing the phenomenon of retrieval-induced forgetting that has been assumed to be the consequence of inhibition in memory. Whereas most studies on this effect comprise word materials, a variant of the retrieval-induced-forgetting paradigm exists for examining motor memory. In the present study, we recorded scalp EEG during this motor-specific variant and examined EEG oscillatory correlates of retrieval-induced slowing of motor actions. Here, forgetting occurred in the form of significant slowing when executing motor sequences in a final recall test. Participants first learned to associate memory cues to sequential finger movements, half of which were performed with the left hand and half with the right hand. They then selectively retrieval-practiced half of the items of one hand before finally memory for all items was tested. On a behavioral level, selective retrieval practice induced slower execution of the non-retrieved items of the retrieval-practiced hand in a final memory test. On a physiological level, this retrieval-induced-slowing effect was predicted by an increase of EEG beta power during retrieval practice. The results suggest that motor retrieval-induced forgetting is a consequence of inhibition in human memory.
Forget-me, forget-me-not: Evidence for directed forgetting in preschoolers
2018, Cognitive Development
The present study challenges the view that directed forgetting is a late developing mnemonic skill. In two experiments preschoolers first learned a list of everyday objects, and were then asked to “empty their heads of these objects to make room for new ones” or to keep them in their minds. Then, a new list of unrelated objects was learned. After a short distractor phase, children were asked to recall the objects. In Experiment 1 (N = 52) children were asked to recall the first list of objects before the second list. No recall order was specified in Experiment 2 (N = 55) to limit potential output interference effects. In both experiments, children who had been instructed to forget the first list had difficulties recalling objects from this list and showed enhanced memory for the items from the other list compared to children who were told to remember. These results establish that young children are already capable of forgetting information that is labeled irrelevant, with positive effects on new learning. Mechanisms underlying costs and benefits of directed forgetting in preschoolers are discussed.
The Two Faces of Selective Memory Retrieval—Cognitive, Developmental, and Social Processes
2017, Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory
Citation Excerpt :
Subsequent studies replicated Tulving and Arbuckle's (1963) original finding and extended it to other experimental settings and study materials. Smith (1971) and Roediger (1978), for instance, confirmed the finding using categorized item lists and controlling testing order through presentation of the items' category labels as retrieval cues (for a review of early work on output interference, see Roediger, 1974). Bäuml and Samenieh (2010), in a more recent study, demonstrated that output interference can also arise in recall of lists of unrelated words, when testing order is controlled through presentation of the items' unique first letter(s) as retrieval cues.
Numerous studies from the past five decades have shown that selective retrieval of some studied items can impair recall of other items. This chapter reviews more recent work, in which it is demonstrated that selective memory retrieval has two faces and that it can both impair and improve recall of other items. In this recent work, participants' access to study context during selective retrieval was experimentally manipulated and it was examined whether such manipulation influences the effects of selective retrieval. Access to study context was manipulated using listwise directed forgetting, context-dependent forgetting and time-dependent forgetting. The results consistently showed that selective retrieval impairs recall of other memories if access to study context during retrieval is largely maintained, but that selective retrieval can improve recall if study context access is impaired. The findings are explained by a two-factor account, which claims that, in general, selective retrieval does not only trigger inhibition and blocking but also triggers context reactivation processes. The proposal is that primarily inhibition and blocking operate when study context access during selective retrieval is largely maintained, whereas primarily context reactivation processes operate when study context access is impaired. Current findings on the two faces of selective retrieval are well consistent with this theoretical view.
Beneficial effects of selective item repetition on the recall of other items
2017, Journal of Memory and Language
Selective retrieval of some studied material can improve recall of the other material when access to study context at test is impaired, an effect that has been attributed to context reactivation processes (Bäuml and Samenieh, 2012). This study aimed at providing more direct evidence for this proposal by examining the influence of mental reinstatement of study context for the effects of selective retrieval. In addition, it was examined whether the induced beneficial effect generalizes from selective retrieval to selective restudy, and varies with retrieval difficulty, thus providing evidence on whether format of selective item repetition can influence context reactivation processes. In four experiments, prolonged retention intervals between study and selective item repetition were employed to impair study context access. Two main results emerged. First, mental reinstatement of the study context can eliminate, and even reverse, the beneficial effect of selective retrieval. Second, the size of the beneficial effect varies with repetition format, and is larger after selective retrieval than selective restudy, and larger when selective retrieval is demanding. These findings strengthen the view that context reactivation processes mediate the beneficial effects of selective item repetition. In particular, they indicate that the degree of repetition-induced context reactivation can vary with repetition format.
Retrieval-induced forgetting is retrieval-modality specific: Evidence from motor memory
2017, Cognition
Citation Excerpt :
Interfering information then hampers successful retrieval of the sought information. Many memory phenomena have been linked to interference, for example, the fan effect (Anderson, 1974), proactive interference (Underwood, 1948), retroactive interference (Müller & Pilzecker, 1900), and output interference (Smith, 1971). Whereas these effects all demonstrate a decline in memory performance with increasing interference, research on retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) additionally has found evidence consistent with an inhibitory mechanism that serves to resolve interference arising during retrieval attempts.
Three experiments examined the impact of matching retrieval modality at retrieval practice and at test on retrieval-induced forgetting. Participants learned sequential finger movements to be performed either with the left or with the right index finger. Subsequently, they selectively practiced half the items of one hand. A final recall test then assessed memory for all initially learned items. We contrasted different retrieval modalities. In Experiment 1, retrieval practice pertained to motor responses in one experimental condition but it pertained to visual sequence displays in another condition. The final recall test was motoric in both conditions. In Experiment 2, retrieval practice always pertained to visual sequence displays but the final recall test either pertained to motor responses or to visual sequence displays. Retrieval-induced forgetting emerged only when the modality of the final recall test matched the modality of retrieval practice. In Experiment 3, retrieval practice either involved executing motor sequences with the same finger as in the learning phase or participants had to use the opposite hand for indicating sequences. An effector change for retrieval practice eliminated retrieval-induced forgetting in a test requiring the execution of motor sequences again with the same finger as in the learning phase. We suggest that retrieval-induced forgetting occurred as a consequence of retrieval-modality-specific inhibition.
Retrieval-Induced Remembering and Forgetting
2017, Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference
Selectively retrieving a subset of previously studied information enhances memory of the retrieved information but can cause forgetting of nonretrieved information. This chapter reviews the literature on such retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF), asking whether the forgetting depends on testing format, is retrieval specific and interference dependent, is modulated by retention interval after selective retrieval, and varies between individuals. The most prominent theoretical accounts of RIF are introduced and evaluated against the empirical findings. Also some more recent studies are reviewed, which indicate that, under certain conditions, selective retrieval can also improve memory of the nonretrieved information.

View all citing articles on Scopus

¹: This research is based on a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Virginia. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Research Grant GB-6756 to L. Starling Reid. The author is indebted to Professor L. Starling Reid for his guidance in all phases of this research and Professor Eugene A. Lovelace for his critical reading of this manuscript.

²: Now at the School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332.

View full text

Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory1

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

Differential retention of individual paired associates within a RTT “learning” trial

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut Category Norms

Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph

Cultural norms for verbal items in 43 categories

The determinants of mediated priming: Time interval, semantic and associative relationships

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior