It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Suppressing retrieval of unwanted memories can cause forgetting, an outcome often attributed to the recruitment of inhibitory control. This suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) generalizes to different cues used to test the suppressed content (cue-independence), a property taken as consistent with inhibition. But does cue-independent forgetting necessarily imply that a memory has been inhibited? Tomlinson et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:15588–15593, 2009) reported a surprising finding that pressing a button also led to cue-independent forgetting, which was taken as support for an alternative interference account. Here we investigated the role of inhibition in forgetting due to retrieval suppression and pressing buttons. We modified Tomlinson et al.’s procedure to examine an unusual feature they introduced that may have caused memory inhibition effects in their experiment: the omission of explicit task-cues. When tasks were uncued, we replicated the button-press forgetting effect; but when cued, pressing buttons caused no forgetting. Moreover, button-press forgetting partially reflects output-interference effects at test and not a lasting effect of interference. In contrast, SIF occurred regardless of these procedural changes. Collectively, these findings indicate that simply pressing a button does not induce forgetting, on its own, without confounding factors that introduce inhibition into the task and that inhibition likely underlies SIF.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Tilburg University, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.12295.3d) (ISNI:0000 0001 0943 3265); Erasmus University Rotterdam, Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.6906.9) (ISNI:0000000092621349); University of Cambridge, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000000121885934)
2 Memorial University of Newfoundland, Department of Psychology, St. John’s, Canada (GRID:grid.25055.37) (ISNI:0000 0000 9130 6822)
3 University of Cambridge, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000000121885934)