Suppression-induced forgetting: A pre-registered replication of the Think/No-Think paradigm. Stage 1 report: In-Principle Acceptance for the Journal Memory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-traumatic stress disorder is characterised by recurring memories of a traumatic experience as well as the deliberate avoidance of those memories in order to forget. However, can intentional suppression really lead to forgetting? The Think/No-Think (TNT) task has been used widely in the laboratory to study suppression-induced forgetting. The idea is that actively suppressing the retrieval of a memory when faced with a reminder reduces its strength, and hence, the memory can become inaccessible across multiple suppression attempts. During the TNT task, participants first learn a series of cue-target word pairs (e.g., WAFFLE-MAPLE). Subsequently, they are presented with a subset of the cue-words and are instructed to either think (respond items) or not think about the corresponding target (suppression items; baseline items are not shown). Successful suppression-induced forgetting is thought to reduce recall of the suppressed items compared to baseline items in subsequent memory tests. Although recent meta-analyses have reported small-to-moderate effect sizes in this paradigm, the current replication represents a collaborative effort to evaluate this paradigm following pre-registration. In particular, we propose an online experimenter-present version inclusive of both the same- (e.g., WAFFLE) and independent-probe (e.g., TREE-M) tests in English-speaking healthy individuals using a direct suppression instruction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".