Intention matters more than attention: Item-method directed forgetting of items at attended and unattended locations

Abstract

This study embedded attentional cues in the study phase of an item-method directed forgetting task. We used an unpredictive onset cue (Experiment 1), a predictive onset cue (Experiment 2), or a predictive central cue (Experiments 3-6) to direct attention to the left or right. In Experiments 1-5, this was followed by a pink or blue study word that required a speeded colour discrimination; in Experiment 6, it was followed by a pink or blue word or nonword that required a lexical decision. Each study word was followed by an instruction to Remember or Forget. A yes-no recognition test confirmed better recognition of to-be-remembered words than to-be-forgotten words; a cueing effect confirmed the effectiveness of predictive cues in allocating attentional resources. There was, however, no evidence that the directed forgetting effect differed for attended and unattended words: Encoding depends more on the memory intention formed after a study word has disappeared than on the availability of processing resources when that word first appears.

Keywords: Attention; Encoding; Intentional forgetting; Item-method directed forgetting.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the study trials in Experiment 1

Fig. 2

Results of Experiment 1. a Mean correct RTs (ms) to discriminate the colour of the study word, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). b Mean recognition “yes” responses to studied words (i.e., hits), as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). For reference, the mean recognition “yes” responses to unstudied foil words (i.e., false alarms) is depicted as a dotted line. The error bars represent Fisher’s Least Significant Difference on the two-way interaction; nonoverlapping bars can be interpreted as being significantly different

Fig. 3

Results of Experiment 2. a Mean correct RTs (ms) to discriminate the colour of the study word, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). b Mean recognition “yes” responses to studied words (i.e., hits), as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). For reference, the mean recognition “yes” responses to unstudied foil words (i.e., false alarms) is depicted as a dotted line. The error bars represent Fisher’s Least Significant Difference on the two-way interaction; nonoverlapping bars can be interpreted as being significantly different

Fig. 4

Results of Experiment 3. a Mean correct RTs (ms) to discriminate the colour of the study word, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). b Mean recognition “yes” responses to studied words (i.e., hits), as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). For reference, the mean recognition “yes” responses to unstudied foil words (i.e., false alarms) is depicted as a dotted line. The error bars represent Fisher’s Least Significant Difference on the two-way interaction; nonoverlapping bars can be interpreted as being significantly different

Fig. 5

Results of Experiment 4. a Mean correct RTs (ms) to discriminate the colour of the study word, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). b Mean recognition “yes” responses to studied words (i.e., hits), as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). For reference, the mean recognition “yes” responses to unstudied foil words (i.e., false alarms) is depicted as a dotted line. The error bars represent Fisher’s Least Significant Difference on the two-way interaction; nonoverlapping bars can be interpreted as being significantly different.

Fig. 6

Results of Experiment 5. a Mean correct RTs (ms) to discriminate the colour of the study word, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). b Mean recognition “yes” responses to studied Words and Distractors, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). For reference, the mean recognition “yes” responses to unstudied foil words (i.e., false alarms) is depicted as a dotted line. The error bars represent Fisher’s Least Significant Difference on the two-way interaction; nonoverlapping bars can be interpreted as being significantly different

Fig. 7

Density functions for the study word colour discrimination RTs, combined across Experiments 2–5. Data are plotted as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). Remember trial functions are plotted in black and Forget trial functions are plotted in white; grey depicts where these functions overlap. Plots are aligned on 0 at the x-axis, which corresponds with the appearance of the coloured study word that required a discrimination response. The vertical dashed line that intercepts the x-axis at 400 ms represents the appearance of the Memory Instruction

Fig. 8

Results of Experiment 6. a Mean correct RTs (ms) to make a lexical decision, as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). b Mean recognition “yes” responses to studied words (i.e., hits), as a function of Cue Condition (Cued, Uncued) and Memory Instruction (Remember, Forget). For reference, the mean recognition “yes” responses to unstudied foil words (i.e., false alarms) is depicted as a dotted line. The error bars represent Fisher’s Least Significant Difference on the two-way interaction; nonoverlapping bars can be interpreted as being significantly different