MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7048369287

Intentional Forgetting: The Role of Retrieval in Encoding

2024· dissertation· en· W7048369287 sur OpenAlexfundno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2024
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiquePhotocathodes and Microchannel Plates
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésForgettingRetrieval-induced forgettingMotivated forgettingEncoding (memory)Duration (music)Set (abstract data type)CognitionWord (group theory)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Intentional remembering and intentional forgetting are adaptive processes that permit us to exert control over the contents of our memories. These abilities ensure that memory preserves the most goal-relevant information, and that goal-irrelevant information is discarded. Often studied in the literature using the item-method directed forgetting paradigm, research continues to debate the cognitive mechanisms that individuals use to intentionally remember and forget information. In this paradigm, during the study phase each presented item receives its own instructional cue—either to-be-forgotten (F) or to-be-remembered (R). The typical finding during the test phase is that memory is poorer for F items than for R items—the directed forgetting effect.
\nIn this dissertation, in Chapter 2, I tested the assumptions of a prominent and longstanding account of the directed forgetting effect: the selective rehearsal account. To do so, I manipulated the time available for rehearsal and time-based decay. Four experiments investigated the influence of instructional cue durations of 1, 5, and 10 seconds. Experiments 1a and 1b, with the order of cue durations randomized, showed no effect of cue duration on recognition of either R or F single words. Experiment 2, using unrelated word pairs, again showed no effect of cue duration, here on associative recognition. Experiments 3 and 4 blocked cue duration and showed enhanced recognition of both R and F single words and word pairs with increasing cue duration. To explain this set of findings, I suggested that better memory for R items than for F items across cue duration depends on (1) a rapid retrieval check engaged for R items only and (2) a rapid removal process implemented for F items only. Additionally, any post-cue rehearsal is carried out only when cue duration is predictable and is equally likely for F items and R items.
\nIn Chapter 3, I set out to test this rapid retrieval check mechanism by inducing an act of retrieval for F items. I predicted that if a rapid retrieval check of R items drives the directed forgetting effect, then inducing such a retrieval check mechanism for F items should reduce the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect. Experiment 5 demonstrated that simply repeating an F item in the encoding list did not force the retrieval of that item. However, in Experiment 6, incorporating a button press for the participant to indicate noticing the repetition of an item revealed that, for items where this repetition was noticed, the directed forgetting effect was eliminated. Experiment 7 induced an act of retrieval using an immediate recognition task following the R/F cue presentation. Results indicated that a retrieval check was successfully induced for F items where the target on the recognition task matched the preceding item, eliminating the directed forgetting effect and confirming the critical role of retrieval in item-method directed forgetting. Experiment 8 replicated these findings while also demonstrating that the removal of F items from working memory did not depend on an active inhibitory mechanism, framing the retrieval-based explanation as a non-inhibitory account of intentional forgetting at encoding.
\nUltimately, this dissertation provides a novel account of item-method directed forgetting in the form of a selective retrieval account. The account emphasizes the pivotal contribution of a rapid retrieval check mechanism applied only to R items during encoding being primarily responsible for the directed forgetting effect. This new theoretical perspective opens avenues for future research on intentional forgetting to explore the role of retrieval during encoding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,442
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,653

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,186
Écart entre enseignants0,179 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetPhotocathodes and Microchannel PlatesTravaux en français237 207