Resolving interference from competing memories is a critical factor in efficient memory retrieval, and several accounts of cognitive aging suggest that difficulty resolving interference may underlie memory deficits such as those seen in the elderly. Although many researchers have suggested that the ability to suppress competitors is a key factor in resolving interference, the evidence supporting this claim has been the subject of debate. Here, we present a new paradigm and results demonstrating that for younger adults, a single retrieval attempt is sufficient to suppress competitors to below-baseline levels of accessibility even though the competitors are never explicitly presented. The extent to which individual younger adults suppressed competitors predicted their performance on a memory span task. In a second experiment, older adults showed no evidence of suppression, which supports the theory that older adults’ memory deficits are related to impaired suppression.
AndersonM. C.ReinholzJ.KuhlB. A.MayrU. (2011). Intentional suppression of unwanted memories grows more difficult as we age. Psychology and Aging, 26, 397–405. doi:10.1037/a0022505
3.
AndersonM. C.SpellmanB. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychological Review, 102, 68–100.
4.
AslanA.BäumlK.-H. T. (2011). Individual differences in working memory capacity predict retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 264–269. doi:10.1037/a0021324
5.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.. . . TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
6.
BlaxtonT. A.NeelyJ. N. (1983). Inhibition from semantically related primes: Evidence of a category-specific inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 11, 500–510.
7.
BuntingM. (2006). Proactive interference and item similarity in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 183–196.
8.
CampbellK. L.HasherL.ThomasR. C. (2010). Hyper-binding: A unique age effect. Psychological Science, 21, 399–405. doi:10.1177/0956797609359910
9.
ConwayA.KaneM.BuntingM.HambrickD.WilhelmO.EngleR. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.
10.
GazzaleyA.CooneyJ. W.RissmanJ.D’EspositoM. (2005). Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1298–1300. doi:10.1038/nn1543
11.
HasherL.LustigC.ZacksR. (2007). Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention. In ConwayA.JarroldC.KaneM.MiyakeA.TowseJ. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 227–249). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
HasherL.ZacksR. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193–225). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13.
HasherL.ZacksR. T.MayC. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In GopherD.KoriatA. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
HealeyM. K.CampbellK. L.HasherL.OssherL. (2010). Direct evidence for the role of inhibition in resolving interference in memory. Psychological Science, 21, 1464–1470. doi:10.1177/0956797610382120
15.
HealeyM. K.HasherL.CampbellK. L. (2013). The role of suppression in resolving interference: Evidence for an age-related deficit. Psychology and Aging, 28, 721–728.
16.
HigginsJ. A.JohnsonM. K. (2009). The consequence of refreshing for access to nonselected items in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 37, 164–174. doi:10.3758/MC.37.2.164
17.
HulickaI. (1967). Age differences in retention as a function of interference. Journals of Gerontology, 22, 180–184.
18.
IkierS.HasherL. (2006). Age differences in implicit interference. Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61, P278–P284.
19.
IkierS.YangL.HasherL. (2008). Implicit proactive interference, age, and automatic versus controlled retrieval strategies. Psychological Science, 19, 456–461.
20.
KaneM. J.HasherL. (1995). Interference. In MaddoxG. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of aging (pp. 514–516). New York, NY: Springer.
21.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.
22.
MassonM. E. J.LoftusG. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.
23.
MayC. P.HasherL.KaneM. J. (1999). The role of interference in memory span. Memory & Cognition, 27, 759–767.
24.
NeelyJ. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.
25.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
26.
NormanK. A.NewmanE. L.DetreG. (2007). A neural network model of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Review, 114, 887–953. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.887
27.
OrtegaA.Gómez-ArizaC. J.RománP.BajoM. T. (2012). Memory inhibition, aging, and the executive deficit hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 178–186. doi:10.1037/a0024510
28.
RaaijmakersJ. G. W.JakabE. (2013). Is forgetting caused by inhibition?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 205–209. doi:10.1177/0963721412473472
RadvanskyG. A.ZacksR. T.HasherL. (2005). Age and inhibition: The retrieval of situation models. Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, P276–P278.
31.
RatcliffR. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461.
32.
RatcliffR. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.
33.
RoweG.HasherL.TurcotteJ. (2008). Age differences in visuospatial working memory. Psychology and Aging, 23, 79–84.
34.
ShipleyW. C. (1946). Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
35.
StormB. C. (2011). The benefit of forgetting in thinking and remembering. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 291–295.
36.
TomlinsonT. D.HuberD. E.RiethC. A.DavelaarE. J. (2009). An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 15588–15593. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813370106
37.
WinocurG.MoscovitchM. (1983). Paired-associate learning in institutionalized and noninstitutionalized old people: An analysis of interference and context effects. Journals of Gerontology, 38, 455–464.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
