Direct Evidence for the Role of Inhibition in Resolving Interference in Memory

Interference from competing material at retrieval is a major cause of memory failure. We tested the hypothesis that such interference can be overcome by suppressing competing responses. In a three-phase task, participants in the critical interference condition first performed a vowel-counting task (Phase 1) that included pairs of orthographically similar words (e.g., allergy and analogy). After a delay, participants were asked to solve word fragments (e.g., a _ l _ _ gy) that resembled both words in a pair they had seen, but could be completed only by one of these words (Phase 2). We then measured the consequence of having successfully resolved interference in Phase 2 by asking participants to read a list of words, including rejected competitor words (i.e., the word in each pair that could not be used to solve the word fragments), as quickly as possible (Phase 3). Participants in the interference condition were slower to name the competitor words than participants in conditions that did not require interference resolution. These results constitute direct evidence for the role of active suppression in resolving interference during memory retrieval.

[1]  B. Underwood,et al.  Retroactive and proactive inhibition after 5 and 48 hours. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  T. Dixon,et al.  Verbal behavior and general behavior theory , 1968 .

[3]  B. Underwood,et al.  Critical issues in interference theory , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[4]  M. Watkins,et al.  Buildup of Proactive Inhibition as a Cue-Overload Effect. , 1975 .

[5]  T A Blaxton,et al.  Inhibition from semantically related primes: Evidence of a category-specific inhibition , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[6]  R. Bjork.  Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. , 1989 .

[7]  Michael C. Anderson,et al.  Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Michael C. Anderson,et al.  On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: memory retrieval as a model case. , 1995, Psychological review.

[9]  M. Farah,et al.  Role of left inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: a reevaluation. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Cynthia P. May,et al.  Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. , 1999 .

[11]  D. Gopher,et al.  Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. , 1999 .

[12]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The fan effect: New results and new theories. , 1999 .

[13]  Michael C. Anderson,et al.  The role of inhibition in meaning selection: Insights from retrieval-induced forgetting. , 2001 .

[14]  R. Zacks,et al.  Is retrieval-induced forgetting an inhibitory process? , 2001, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  L Hasher,et al.  Working memory span and the role of proactive interference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  M. Conway,et al.  Assessing the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting with implicit-memory tests. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Michael D. Dodd,et al.  In Opposition to Inhibition , 2003 .

[18]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[19]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory , 2005, Nature.

[20]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Age and inhibition: the retrieval of situation models. , 2005, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[21]  Alejandra Marful,et al.  Retrieval-induced forgetting in perceptually driven memory tests. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  J. Jonides,et al.  Brain mechanisms of proactive interference in working memory , 2006, Neuroscience.

[23]  C. Lustig,et al.  Inhibitory Mechanisms and the Control of Attention , 2007 .

[24]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[25]  R. Engle,et al.  The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. , 2007, Psychological review.

[26]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Saying No to Inhibition: The Encoding and Use of Words , 2007 .

[27]  Ehren L. Newman,et al.  A neural network model of retrieval-induced forgetting. , 2007, Psychological review.

[28]  David M Erceg-Hurn,et al.  Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[29]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Implicit Proactive Interference, Age, and Automatic Versus Controlled Retrieval Strategies , 2008, Psychological science.

[30]  Jonas Persson,et al.  Mapping interference resolution across task domains: A shared control process in left inferior frontal gyrus , 2009, Brain Research.

[31]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  The consequence of refreshing for access to nonselected items in young and older adults , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Adam Gazzaley,et al.  Neural Suppression of Irrelevant Information Underlies Optimal Working Memory Performance , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  M Karl Healey,et al.  The role of attention during retrieval in working-memory span: A dual-task study , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[34]  Benjamin C. Storm,et al.  Successful inhibition, unsuccessful retrieval: Manipulating time and success during retrieval practice , 2010, Memory.