Retrieval-induced forgetting

The phenomenon was first demonstrated in 1994, although the concept of RIF has been previously discussed in the context of retrieval inhibition.

[7] Since the time of Bjork's original description of this phenomenon, an important portion of his cognitive psychology research performed with members of the Bjork Learning and Forgetting Lab and the Cogfog group at UCLA has explored various aspects of retrieval-induced forgetting.

It is comparable to part-set cuing in that both show lowered memory performance given some previously studied information.

[4][12] The retrieval-practice phase splits items into three different types that are of interest during the final test, and are often denoted using the following notation:[4] After retrieval practice, participants are given a final test, where they are asked to remember all studied items.

The difference between these two proportions is a statistic measuring one's ability to discriminate between studied and non-studied items, and has been used to represent RIF.

"[17][32] In a method called "impossible retrieval practice," RIF has also been observed when participants were asked to generate a word for a category, even though one did not actually exist.

[32][33] RIF is still observed at final test in cases where successful retrieval is not possible, such as one where having studied a number of fruits a participant is asked to generate a word given a cue resembling FRUIT–wu.

In one study of students diagnosed with ADHD, the degree of RIF observed compared to a control group depended on the kind of final test used.

Selective remembering in the conversation induces both Speakers and Listeners in the conversation to forget unmentioned, but related to the mentioned, memories (Rp-) to a larger degree than unmentioned, but unrelated to the mentioned memories (NRp).

[38] Of note, this particular phenomenon of SSRIF has been linked to how communities of individuals form collective memories of the past by selectively retrieving information in conversational interactions.

[39] Many instances of forgetting are often accounted to the interference from heightened accessibility of other, associated information in memory.

These theories describe retrieval processes as a finite set of resources that cannot be distributed adequately enough to unpracticed–related items at test.

[43] Generally speaking, inhibition theory assumes the existence of a set of processes that allows the suppression of memories.

[44][45] Central to the inhibition account of RIF is that access to unpracticed–related items is actively suppressed by this inhibitory process during retrieval-practice.

For instance, when participants perform retrieval practice, the category cue may activate many associated items.

The degree to which related, but inappropriate associates, that is unpracticed–related words, become accessible serves as a source of competition that disrupts retrieval of an appropriate response.

At final test, the consequences of the suppression persist, and previously competitive items that were inhibited become more difficult to remember.

If retrieval practice disrupts participants' memory strategy, it may affect their ability to remember particular items at final test.

These results are the same even when participants are explicitly instructed to remember the order in which items are presented during study.

Diagram describing dependent variables and hypothetical average recall at final test in the retrieval practice paradigm for different item types. These items are different based on 1) whether they were practiced or unpracticed and 2) what their relationship is to practiced items.
Diagram describing when an inhibitory response would be required. According to the inhibitory account of RIF, when prepotent memories are active but inappropriate in response to a cue, they are inhibited in order to access a less accessible but contextually appropriate memory.
If one were to notice a potted plant falling, one might automatically react so as to catch it. However, upon noticing it was a cactus, inhibitory processes would work to withhold that action. A similar process could work with memories that are prepotent but inappropriate for a given situation.