On the role of inhibition in suppression-induced forgetting
Bibliographic record
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.
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
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".