Remember to blink: Reduced attentional blink following instructions to forget

Let me give you something to think about: Does needing to remember something new make it easier to forget something old?

In an item-method directed forgetting task, memory instructions presumably operate by promoting further rehearsal of to-be-remembered (TBR) items and limiting encoding of to-be-forgotten (TBF) items. We asked whether diverting attentional resources away from TBF items and towards a new item that needed to be committed to memory would improve forgetting. To this end, study words in our experiments were presented singly followed by a remember instruction (single-TBR), by a forget instruction (single-TBF), or else were replaced by a new word to be remembered (replace-TBR) in place of the original study word which could be forgotten (replace-TBF). A typical directed forgetting effect was observed across single and replace trials. However, there was no compelling evidence that forgetting was better for replace-TBF compared to single-TBF words, suggesting that, by itself, the explicit redirection of attentional and other processing resources away from forget items may not be sufficient to improve item-method directed forgetting.

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

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.

Forgetting under difficult conditions: Item-method directed forgetting under perceptual processing constraints

Intentional forgetting of unwanted items is effortful, yet directed forgetting seems to improve when a secondary task is performed. According to the cognitive load hypothesis of directed forgetting, allocating attentional resources to another task improves forgetting by restricting unwanted encoding of to-be-forgotten (TBF) items. Alternatively, it might be that anything that makes studying more difficult will encourage greater effort to perform the task well and therefore lead to improved intentional forgetting. To assess these proposals we imposed data-processing limitations on study words in an item-method directed forgetting paradigm. Across six experiments, the perceptual quality of study words was manipulated by varying: (1) the duration of study word presentation (Experiments 1-4); (2) the contrast of the displayed word against its visual background (Experiment 5); or (3) the amount of visual background noise on which the word was presented (Experiment 6). In Experiments 4-6, a lexical decision task corroborated the difficulty of study word processing. Despite evidence that relatively low visual contrast and relatively high visual background noise, in particular, create challenging conditions, we found no evidence that perceptual quality impacts the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect. This work suggests that data limitations have no discernible effect on forgetting and corroborate that only attentional resource limitations improve directed forgetting.