Long-term Effects of Testing on the Recall of Nontested Materials

Testing, or memory retrieval, is a powerful way to enhance long-term retention of studied material. Recent studies have shown that testing can also benefit later retention of related but nontested material (a finding known as retrieval-induced facilitation, Chan, McDermott, & Roediger, 2006), but the long-term consequences of this benefit is unknown. In the current experiment three retention intervals—20 minutes, 24 hours, 7 days—were used to assess the effects of testing on subsequent recall of the nontested material. The results indicate that the magnitude of retrieval-induced facilitation, like that of the testing effect (i.e., the memorial benefit of testing on the tested material), increases with delay at the beginning (i.e., between 20 minutes and 24 hours) but asymptotes afterward (i.e., between 24 hours and 7 days). Theoretical and applied implications of this finding are discussed

When does Retrieval Induce Forgetting and When does it Induce Facilitation? Implications for Retrieval Inhibition, Testing Effect, and Text Processing

Retrieval practice can enhance long-term retention of the tested material (the testing effect), but it can also impair later recall of the nontested material – a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087). Recent research, however, has shown that retrieval practice can sometimes improve later recall of the nontested material – a phenomenon termed retrieval-induced facilitation (Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553–571). What drives these different effects? Two experiments were designed to examine the conditions under which retrieval induces forgetting and facilitation. Two variables, the level of integration invoked during encoding and the length of delay between retrieval practice and final test, were revealed as critical factors in determining whether testing facilitated or hindered later retrieval of the nontested information. A text processing framework is advanced to account for these findings

Impairing Existing Declarative Memory in Humans by Disrupting Reconsolidation

During the past decade, a large body of research has shown that memory traces can become labile upon retrieval and must be restabilized. Critically, interrupting this reconsolidation process can abolish a previously stable memory. Although a large number of studies have demonstrated this reconsolidation associated amnesia in nonhuman animals, the evidence for its occurrence in humans is far less compelling, especially with regard to declarative memory. In fact, reactivating a declarative memory often makes it more robust and less susceptible to subsequent disruptions. Here we show that existing declarative memories can be selectively impaired by using a noninvasive retrieval–relearning technique. In six experiments, we show that this reconsolidation-associated amnesia can be achieved 48 h after formation of the original memory, but only if relearning occurred soon after retrieval. Furthermore, the amnesic effect persists for at least 24 h, cannot be attributed solely to source confusion and is attainable only when relearning targets specific existing memories for impairment. These results demonstrate that human declarative memory can be selectively rewritten during reconsolidation

Telling a good story: The effects of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility

Witnesses are likely to describe a crime many times before testifying or encountering misinformation about that crime. Research examining the effect of retrieval on later suggestibility has yielded mixed results. LaPaglia and Chan manipulated whether misinformation was presented in a narrative or misleading questions, and they found that retrieval increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented in a narrative, but reduced suggestibility when the same misinformation was presented in questions. In the current study, we aimed to address why these differences occurred. Specifically, we examined whether contextual detail and narrative coherence during misinformation exposure influenced the relation between retrieval and suggestibility. Participants watched a robbery video and some were questioned about the event afterwards. They were then exposed to misinformation presented in a narrative (Experiment 1) or questions (Experiment 2) before taking a final memory test. Testing enhanced suggestibility when the misinformation phase reinstated contextual information of the event, but not when the misinformation phase included few contextual details–regardless of whether the misinformation was in a narrative or questions. In Experiment 3, disrupting narrative coherence by randomizing the order of contextual information eliminated retrieval-enhanced suggestibility. Therefore, context processing during the post-event information phase influences whether retrieval enhances or reduces eyewitness suggestibility

Beyond communication: Episodic memory is key to the self in time

Mahr & Csibra (M&C) propose that episodic memory evolved to support epistemic authority in social communication. We argue for a more parsimonious interpretation whereby episodic memory subserves a broader preparatory function for both social and non-social behavior. We conclude by highlighting that functional accounts of episodic memory may need to consider the complex interrelations between self and subjective time

Providing Corrective Feedback During Retrieval Practice Does Not Increase Retrieval-Induced Forgetting

Recalling a subset of studied materials can impair subsequent retrieval of related, nontested materials. In two experiments, we examined the influence of providing corrective feedback (no feedback, immediate feedback, delayed feedback) during retrieval practice on this retrieval-induced forgetting effect. Performance was assessed with category cued recall (e.g., recall all exemplars studied under Weather), category-and-stem cued recall (e.g., Weather–B___), and recognition. We report a dissociation between the effects of feedback on memory of the tested materials and the nontested materials. Whereas providing immediate or delayed feedback (compared to no feedback) improved recall and recognition of the tested items, it had no influence on retrieval-induced forgetting. These results are consistent with the inhibition account of retrieval-induced forgetting. From an applied perspective, this finding is encouraging for students and educators who use testing to foster learning

The Dark Side of Testing Memory: Repeated Retrieval Can Enhance Eyewitness Suggestibility

Eyewitnesses typically recount their experiences many times before trial. Such repeated retrieval can enhance memory retention of the witnessed event. However, recent studies (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009) have found that initial retrieval can exacerbate eyewitness suggestibility to later misleading information—a finding termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES). Here we examined the influence of multiple retrieval attempts on eyewitness suggestibility to subsequent misinformation. In four experiments, we systematically varied the number of initial tests taken (between zero and six), the delay between initial testing and misinformation exposure (~30 min or 1 week), and whether initial testing was manipulated between- or within-subjects. University undergraduate students were used as participants. Overall, we found that eyewitness suggestibility increased as the number of initial tests increased, but this RES effect was qualified by the delay and by whether initial testing occurred in a within- or between-subjects manner. Specifically, the within-subjects RES effect was smaller than the between-subjects RES effect, possibly because of the influence of retrieval-induced forgetting/facilitation (Chan, 2009) when initial testing was manipulated within subjects. Moreover, consistent with the testing effect literature (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), the benefits of repeated testing on later memory were stronger after a 1-week delay than after a 30-min delay, thus reducing the negative impact of RES in long-term situations. These findings suggest that conditions that are likely to occur in criminal investigations can either increase (repeated testing) or reduce (delay) the influence of RES, thus further demonstrating the complex relationship between eyewitness memory and repeated retrieval. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved

Retrieval Does Not Always Enhance Suggestibility: Testing Can Improve Witness Identification Performance

Verbally recalling the appearance of a perpetrator and the details of an event can sometimes hinder later eyewitness memory performance. In two experiments, we investigated the effects of verbally recalling a face on people\u27s ability to resist subsequent misinformation about that face. Participants watched a video of a theft and then completed either a recall test or a distractor activity. After a delay, some participants heard a piece of misinformation. Memory was assessed with a recall test in Experiment 1 and with a target-present lineup in Experiment 2. In both experiments, initial testing reduced eyewitness suggestibility for the face. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved