Recent years have seen an increased interest in understanding memory-retrieval dynamics and, in particular, what makes a person decide to terminate the memory-search process. We review research that has employed the open-ended retrieval paradigm (Dougherty & Harbison, 2007) and focus on the behavioral regularities it has revealed. The main finding of this research is that people’s memory-search behavior follows a lawful pattern of a convex decreasing relation between exit latency, or the time between the final retrieval and the decision to terminate search, and the number of items retrieved. Theoretical work has converged on a stopping rule that treats the retrieval process as a costly cognitive process that is truncated on the basis of a comparative judgment of perceived relative benefit. Parallels with other search domains are highlighted.
HarbisonJ. I.DoughertyM. R.DavelaarE. J.FayyadB. (2009). (See References). An overview of various alternative stopping rules for memory search.
2.
HillsT. T.JonesM. N.ToddP. M. (2012). (See References). A broad theoretical treatment of the role of stopping rules.
3.
MillerJ. F.WeidemannC. T.KahanaM. J. (2012). (See References). An evaluation of relationship between intrusion errors and search termination.
4.
AbbottJ.AusterweilJ.GriffithsT. (2012). Human memory search as a random walk in a semantic network. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 25, 3050–3058.
5.
CainM. S.VulE.ClarkK.MitroffS. R. (2011). A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search. Psychological Science, 23, 1047–1054.
6.
DavelaarE. J. (2008). A computational study of conflict-monitoring at two levels of processing: Reaction time distributional analyses and hemodynamic responses. Brain Research, 1202, 109–119.
7.
DavelaarE. J.Goshen-GottsteinY.AshkenaziA.HaarmannH. J.UsherM. (2005). The demise of short-term memory revisited: Empirical and computational investigations of recency effects. Psychological Review, 112, 3–42.
8.
DavelaarE. J.YuE. C.HarbisonJ. I.HusseyE. K.DoughertyM. R. (2013). A rational approach to memory search termination. Cognitive Systems Research, 24, 96–103.
9.
DoughertyM. R.HarbisonJ. I. (2007). Motivated to retrieve: How often are you willing to go back to the well when the well is dry?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1108–1117.
10.
HarbisonJ. I.DavelaarE. J.YuE. C.HusseyE. K.DoughertyM. R. (2013). Intrusions and the decision to terminate memory search. In KnauffM.PauenM.SebanzN.WachsmuthI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 549–554). Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.
11.
HarbisonJ. I.DoughertyM. R.DavelaarE. J.FayyadB. (2009). On the lawfulness of the decision to terminate memory search. Cognition, 111, 146–421.
12.
HillsT. T. (2006). Animal foraging and the evolution of goal-directed cognition. Cognitive Science, 30, 3–41.
13.
HillsT. T.JonesM. N.ToddP. M. (2012). Optimal foraging in semantic memory. Psychological Review, 119, 431–440.
14.
HusseyE. K.DoughertyM. R.HarbisonJ. I.DavelaarE. J. (2014). Retrieval dynamics in self-terminated memory search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 394–416.
15.
LamingD. (2009). Failure to recall. Psychological Review, 116, 157–186.
16.
MetcalfeJ.MurdockB. B. (1981). An encoding and retrieval model of single-trial free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 161–189.
17.
MillerJ. F.WeidemannC. T.KahanaM. J. (2012). Recall termination in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 40, 540–550.
18.
MurdockB. B.OkadaR. (1970). Inter-response times in single-trial free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 86, 263–267.
19.
PayneS. J.DugganG. B. (2011). Giving up problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 39, 902–913.
20.
PirolliP.CardS. K. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643–675.
21.
RaaijmakersJ. G. W.ShiffrinR. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.
22.
ThomasR. P.DoughertyM. R.ButtaccioD. (2014). Memory constraints on hypothesis generation and decision-making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 264–270.
23.
ThomasR. P.DoughertyM. R.SprengerA. M.HarbisonJ. I. (2008). Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment. Psychological Review, 115, 155–185.
24.
ToddP. M.HillsT.RobbinsT. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive search: Evolution, algorithms, and the brain (Strüngmann Forum Reports). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
TownsendJ. T.WengerM. J. (2004). The serial-parallel dilemma: A case study in a linkage of theory and method. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 391–418.
26.
UnsworthN.BrewerG. A.SpillersG. J. (2011). Factors that influence search termination decision in free recall: An examination of response type and confidence. Acta Psychologica, 138, 19–29.
27.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
28.
WilkeA.HutchinsonJ. M. C.ToddP. M.CzienskowskiU. (2009). Fishing for the right words: Decision rules for human foraging behavior in internal search tasks. Cognitive Science, 33, 497–529.
29.
WolfeJ. M. (2013). When is it time to move to the next raspberry bush? Foraging rules in human visual search. Journal of Vision, 13(3), Article 10. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/13/3/10.full
30.
YoungC. J. (2004). Contributions of metaknowledge to retrieval of natural categories in semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 909–916.
