Forgetting from working memory: does novelty encoding matter?
- PMID: 22563635
- DOI: 10.1037/a0028475
Forgetting from working memory: does novelty encoding matter?
Abstract
The sources of forgetting in working memory remain the matter of intense debate. According to the SOB model (serial order in a box; Farrell & Lewandowsky, 2002), forgetting in complex span tasks does not result from temporal decay but from interference produced by the encoding of distractors that are superimposed over memory items onto a composite memory. The main tenet of the model is that the encoding strength of a distractor is a function of its novelty, with novel distractors being encoded with a large encoding weight that interferes with other memories, whereas repeated distractors would result in negligible encoding weight and no further forgetting. In the present study, we tested the 2 main predictions issuing from this model. First, recall performance should be better in complex span tasks in which distractors are repeated than in tasks in which every distractor is novel. Second, increasing the number of novel distractors should lead to more interference and poorer recall. In 5 experiments in which we controlled for attentional demand and temporal factors, none of these predictions were verified, whereas a strong effect of the pace at which distracting tasks were performed testified that they involved forgetting. We conclude that, contrary to the SOB model, the novelty of distractors plays no role per se in forgetting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
(c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Turning simple span into complex span: Time for decay or interference from distractors?J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jul;36(4):958-78. doi: 10.1037/a0019764. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010. PMID: 20565212 Clinical Trial.
-
Interference between maintenance and processing in working memory: the effect of item-distractor similarity in complex span.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 May;38(3):665-85. doi: 10.1037/a0026337. Epub 2011 Dec 5. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012. PMID: 22141748 Review.
-
The fate of distractors in working memory: No evidence for their active removal.Cognition. 2017 Dec;169:129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.011. Epub 2017 Sep 5. Cognition. 2017. PMID: 28886408
-
Control of information in working memory: Encoding and removal of distractors in the complex-span paradigm.Cognition. 2016 Nov;156:106-128. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.007. Epub 2016 Aug 20. Cognition. 2016. PMID: 27552059
-
Modeling working memory: an interference model of complex span.Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):779-819. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0272-4. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012. PMID: 22715024 Review.
Cited by
-
Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?Mem Cognit. 2024 Feb;52(2):271-284. doi: 10.3758/s13421-023-01458-8. Epub 2023 Sep 6. Mem Cognit. 2024. PMID: 37674056 Free PMC article.
-
On some of the main criticisms of the modal model: Reappraisal from a TBRS perspective.Mem Cognit. 2020 Apr;48(3):455-468. doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-00982-w. Mem Cognit. 2020. PMID: 31641994
-
On the proper reading of the TBRS model: reply to Oberauer and Lewandowsky (2014).Front Psychol. 2014 Nov 21;5:1331. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01331. eCollection 2014. Front Psychol. 2014. PMID: 25484871 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Evidence Against Novelty-Gated Encoding in Serial Recall.J Cogn. 2022 Feb 8;5(1):17. doi: 10.5334/joc.207. eCollection 2022. J Cogn. 2022. PMID: 36072121 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of negative emotional stimuli on working memory: Impact of voluntary and automatic attention.Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Apr;32(2):866-874. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02593-2. Epub 2024 Oct 7. Psychon Bull Rev. 2025. PMID: 39375301
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical