Memory ISSN: 0965-8211 (Print) 1464-0686 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20 Does retrieving a memory insulate it against memory inhibition? A retroactive interference study Justin C. Hulbert & Michael C. Anderson To cite this article: Justin C. Hulbert & Michael C. Anderson (2020): Does retrieving a memory insulate it against memory inhibition? A retroactive interference study, Memory, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1710216 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1710216 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 19 Jan 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20 MEMORY https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1710216 Does retrieving a memory insulate it against memory inhibition? A retroactive interference study Justin C. Hulbert a and Michael C. Andersonb aPsychology Program, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA; bMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Several recent studies suggest that an initial retrieval attempt imbues retrieved memories with Received 12 March 2019 special resilience against future interference and other forgetting mechanisms. Here we report Accepted 23 December 2019 two experiments examining whether memories established through initial retrieval remain KEYWORDS subject to retrieval-induced forgetting. Using a version of a classical retroactive interference Retrieval-induced forgetting; design, we trained participants on a list of A–B pairs via anticipation – constituting a form of – – inhibitory control; retroactive retrieval practice. After next training participants on interfering A C pairs, they performed 0 12 interference; cue- additional A–C anticipation trials. Because these trials required retrieval of A–Cpairs,they independent forgetting should function similarly to retrieval practice in paradigms establishing retrieval-induced forgetting. We observed robust evidence that retroactive interference generalises to final memory tests involving novel, independent memory probes. Moreover, in contrast to practising retrieval of A–C items, their extra study failed to induce cue-independent forgetting of the original B items. Together, these findings substantiate the role of retrieval-related inhibitory processes in a traditional retroactive interference design. Importantly, they indicate that an initial retrieval attempt on a competitor does not abolish retrieval-induced forgetting, at least not in the context of this classic design. Although such an attempt may protect against inhibition in some circumstances, the nature of those circumstances remains to be understood. Retrieving the past modifies memory in at least two ways. face of at least some forgetting mechanisms. Consistent On the one hand, behavioural studies have shown that with this view, recent findings suggest that retrieval can, retrieval fosters later retention of the retrieved content indeed, protect retrieved items from retroactive interfer- and does so more effectively than does simple re-exposure ence arising from novel encoding (Halamish & Bjork, of the same material (Bjork, 1988; Karpicke & Roediger, 2011), proactive interference from prior lists (Pastötter, 2008; Landauer & Bjork, 1978; Rowland, 2014; van den Schicker, Niedernhuber, & Bäuml, 2011), and directed for- Broek et al., 2016). Neurobiological research has, moreover, getting (Abel & Bäuml, 2016). Critically, several studies found that retrieval elicits special processes that may facili- have suggested that an initial retrieval attempt may insu- tate the consolidation or reconsolidation of experiences in late a memory against the inhibitory processes thought long-term memory (e.g., Antony, Ferreira, Norman, & to create retrieval-induced forgetting (Kliegl & Bäuml, Wimber, 2017), reinforcing the view that retrieval renders 2016; Racsmány & Keresztes, 2015). We put this finding memories resilient. On the other hand, a complementary to the test using a classical A–B, A–C retroactive interfer- body of research establishes that retrieval causes forgetting ence design in the current experiments. Doing so of competing information that might impede retrieval of a enabled us to test whether retrieval-related inhibitory pro- target event. This “darker side” of retrieval, known as retrie- cesses play a role in retroactive interference (for specu- val-induced forgetting, is believed to be produced, in part, lation on this point, see, e.g., Anderson, 2003; Anderson & by inhibitory control processes that isolate the desired Neely, 1996; Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994; Bäuml, 1996). trace in memory and that ultimately shape how accessible Moreover, the conventional A–B, A–C design, described memories are. Taken together, retrieval’s positive and nega- in greater detail below, involves training participants to tive effects suggest that this process shapes the state of form associations between cues and targets via the memory adaptively, according to patterns in its use (e.g., method of anticipation, which is a form of retrieval prac- Bekinschtein, Weisstaub, Gallo, Renner, & Anderson, 2018). tice. If retrieval practice insulates memory items against If retrieval evokes special processes that enhance reten- inhibition, as has been suggested, any forgetting found tion, retrieved items must necessarily be resilient in the with these traditional methods may not reflect inhibition, CONTACT Justin Hulbert [email protected] Psychology Program, Bard College, P.O. Box 5000, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504, USA © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 J.C.HULBERTANDM.C.ANDERSON contrary to speculations like those mentioned above. It is effort to retrieve a target item induces forgetting of compe- therefore important to examine whether retroactive inter- titors (Storm & Nestojko, 2009; Storm, Bjork, Bjork, & Nes- ference exhibits properties suggesting a role of inhibitory tojko, 2006). In contrast, retrieval-induced forgetting has processes. In so doing, we provide a further test of been tied to the tendency for related memories to whether an initial retrieval insulates items against inhibi- compete during retrieval practice, a phenomenon known tory control. We first summarise some foundational as competition dependence (Anderson, 2003; see Mur- findings regarding retrieval-induced forgetting and, separ- ayama et al., 2014, for a meta-analysis). Not only do brain ately, the protective effects of retrieval before examining signals linked to competition predict retrieval-induced for- their potential interaction experimentally. getting (Kuhl, Dudukovic, Kahn, & Wagner, 2007; Staudigl, Hanslmayr, & Bäuml, 2010), changes in competition levels between the retrieval practice attempts can be used to clas- Retrieval as a cause of forgetting sify which newly acquired word pairs are recalled after a Retrieval-induced forgetting is often studied using the week-long delay (Rafidi, Hulbert, Brooks, & Norman, 2018). retrieval-practice paradigm (Anderson et al., 1994). In a Another important finding supporting the involvement typical experiment, participants study category-exemplar of inhibition concerns the tendency for retrieval-induced pairs (e.g., FOOD-BREAD, DRINKS-SCOTCH, FOOD- forgetting to generalise to novel test cues, a property CHERRY). Participants are then asked to practise retrieving known as cue independence (Anderson & Spellman, half of the exemplars from half the studied categories via 1995; Levy & Anderson, 2002; Murayama et al., 2014; cues that include a category name and a word stem Storm & Levy, 2012). For example, practising retrieval of (FOOD-B__). Finally, after a short delay, participants are FOOD-BREAD impairs later recall of competitors learned asked to recall all the studied exemplars. On this final under that same category (CHERRY), regardless of test, participants recall more of the items that they prac- whether they are tested with the original cue under tised retrieving (FOOD-BREAD) than baseline items from which they were studied (i.e., the “same probe” condition, unpracticed categories (SCOTCH). More interestingly, e.g., FOOD) or with an independent cue (e.g., an alternative retrieval practice impairs later recall of unpracticed items category for CHERRY, like RED-C__, designed to be unre- from practiced categories (CHERRY) relative to baseline lated to the practiced category or exemplars; Anderson & items. The finding that selective retrieval impairs the acces- Spellman, 1995; Anderson, Green, & McCulloch, 2000; sibility of related memories, known as retrieval-induced Hulbert et al., 2012; Murayama et al., 2014; Weller, Ander- forgetting (Anderson, 2003; Anderson et al., 1994; see Mur- son, Gómez-Ariza, & Bajo, 2012). The generalisation of ayama, Miyatsu, Buchli, & Storm, 2014, for a meta-analysis; retrieval-induced forgetting to independent test cues unre- Storm & Levy, 2012), generalises to a variety of episodically lated to practiced items has been interpreted as an indi- formed associations (Abel & Bäuml,