Suppression-induced Forgetting Research Articles

Suppression-Induced Forgetting as a Model for Repression.

The Think/No-Think (T/NT) task was designed to test whether the deliberate avoidance of retrieving a memory (i.e., suppression) hinders the subsequent recall of that memory. Forgetting effects obtained with the T/NT-task (Suppression-Induced Forgetting) are thought to result from memory inhibition: the deactivation of the representation of the to-be-suppressed memory. Memory inhibition can be specifically inferred from decreased performance on a test using Independent Probes-cues that are unrelated to the initial study phase in the T/NT-procedure. The present contribution explores the evidence for the idea that Suppression-Induced Forgetting obtained with such Independent Probes may provide a viable model for repression. A review of the literature on Suppression-Induced Forgetting with Independent Probes (SIF-IP) suggests that reliable estimates of the overall effect size are unavailable, that the extent to which the literature suffers from publication bias is unknown and that reporting bias may obstruct a clear view of the percentage of studies that find a statistically significant effect. In addition, it is difficult to study SIF-IP in autobiographical memories, due to their complexity and idiosyncrasy. All in all, it seems questionable whether suppression-induced forgetting obtained with independent probes provides a viable model of repression.

On the role of inhibition in suppression-induced forgetting

Suppressing retrieval of unwanted memories can cause forgetting, an outcome often attributed to the recruitment of inhibitory control. This suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) generalizes to different cues used to test the suppressed content (cue-independence), a property taken as consistent with inhibition. But does cue-independent forgetting necessarily imply that a memory has been inhibited? Tomlinson et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:15588–15593, 2009) reported a surprising finding that pressing a button also led to cue-independent forgetting, which was taken as support for an alternative interference account. Here we investigated the role of inhibition in forgetting due to retrieval suppression and pressing buttons. We modified Tomlinson et al.’s procedure to examine an unusual feature they introduced that may have caused memory inhibition effects in their experiment: the omission of explicit task-cues. When tasks were uncued, we replicated the button-press forgetting effect; but when cued, pressing buttons caused no forgetting. Moreover, button-press forgetting partially reflects output-interference effects at test and not a lasting effect of interference. In contrast, SIF occurred regardless of these procedural changes. Collectively, these findings indicate that simply pressing a button does not induce forgetting, on its own, without confounding factors that introduce inhibition into the task and that inhibition likely underlies SIF.

Suppression-induced forgetting of motor sequences

Two experiments examined the effects of deliberately suppressing retrieval of motor sequences on their later recall, in the think/no-think paradigm (Anderson & Green, 2001). After several motor sequences had been associated with individual cues through repeated practice cycles, a subset of these sequences was retrieved in response to their respective cues (think trials), whereas other sequences were suppressed. In such no-think trials, cues were shown but participants were instructed to withhold the associated motor response and to suppress its recollection. We found that suppressing retrieval impaired later memory performance for the suppressed sequences in comparison to items that were not cued at all after their initial training (baseline sequences). Suppression impaired later sequence recall and sequence speed although in different ways depending on the training level: with higher initial training of sequences (Experiment 1), suppression impaired reaction time, but not recall accuracy; with lower initial training (Experiment 2), suppression reduced recall accuracy. Reaction time analyses revealed a consistent slowing of movement execution for suppressed sequences. These findings show that inhibitory control processes engaged during retrieval suppression can influence memory representations of motor actions, by not only reducing their accessibility but also by affecting their execution, once retrieved.

Can't stop thinking: The role of cognitive control in suppression-induced forgetting

The ability to control unwanted memories is essential for emotional regulation and maintaining mental health. Previous evidence indicates that suppressing retrieval, which recruits executive control mechanisms to prevent unwanted memories entering consciousness, can cause forgetting, termed suppression-induced forgetting (SIF). Since these executive mechanisms involve multiple mental operations, we hypothesize that the efficacy of SIF may be limited by individuals’ capacity limitation of cognitive control. Here, we tested this hypothesis. Participants were assigned to two groups based on the median of their cognitive control capacity (CCC, estimated by the backward masking majority function task) and performed the think/no-think task with electrophysiological signals recorded. The results showed that the SIF effect was observed only in the high CCC group but not in the low CCC group. In accordance, repeated suppression attempts also resulted in a steeper reduction in intrusive thoughts in the high CCC group. Furthermore, ERP analysis revealed a decrease in recollection-related late parietal positivity (LPP) under the no-think condition in the high CCC group. A mediation analysis revealed that the reduced intrusive memories mediated the effect of CCC on SIF. These findings suggest that suppressing retrieval could reduce traces of the unwanted memories, making them less intrusive and harder to recall. More importantly, successful SIF is constrained by the capacity of cognitive control which may be used to ensure the coordination of multiple cognitive processes during suppression.

Cortisol reactivity impairs suppression-induced forgetting

To some extent, we can shape our recollections by intentionally remembering certain experiences while trying to forget others, for example, by intentional suppression. Acute stress impairs suppression-induced forgetting of memories. It is unclear, however, whether these deficits are a direct consequence of the acute stress-induced cortisol response. The present study was designed to examine the stress-induced impairment in suppression-induced forgetting in a subgroup of cortisol responders. We exposed healthy participants to a stress (n = 55) or no-stress control (n = 32) version of the Maastricht Acute Stress Test before they performed the Think / No-Think task. Here, participants aimed to repeatedly retrieve or suppress memories of previously learned cue-target video clips to mimic the complexity of episodic memories. Results on the subsequent memory test revealed that, while the no-stress controls and cortisol non-responders demonstrated suppression-induced forgetting, this effect was absent in cortisol responders. Moreover, the magnitude of suppression-induced forgetting was negatively correlated to stress-induced cortisol increases. The current study extends findings on stress-induced impairments in suppression-induced forgetting by specifically focusing on cortisol reactivity. Furthermore, our findings show the importance of individual differences in cortisol responses as a driving mechanism behind stress-induced alterations in our capacity to actively control our memory.

Retrieval suppression induced forgetting on 1-week-old consolidated episodic memories

Retrieval suppression has been established to cause forgetting on a wide range of memory types, but mostly in newly formed memories. Over time, the consolidation process stabilizes memory and changes the memory locus in the brain, which may affect the effectiveness of retrieval suppression. In two experiments, we examined whether retrieval suppression can induce forgetting on consolidated episodic memories and explored its potential reliance on explicit memory reactivation or spontaneous memory intrusions to destabilize the consolidated memory. We found that, compared with associative interference, another well-established forgetting approach, retrieval suppression consistently induced forgetting on 1-week-old memories. This suppression-induced forgetting was uncovered stably via an independent retrieval cue, suggesting its effect being on the target memory itself. However, we did not find evidence of modulation on the suppression-induced forgetting by either explicit reactivation or spontaneous intrusions. Together, our results extend the suppression-induced forgetting to episodic memories that have been consolidated for 1 week and suggest that retrieval suppression could destabilize consolidated memories.

No-think, No drink? Assessing the ability of reconsolidation interference by intentional forgetting to suppress alcohol memories in hazardous drinkers

Memory reconsolidation offers an opportunity to modify previously consolidated memories by first reactivating them. The process is triggered by the presentation of retrieval cues (reminders of the memory to be reactivated). However, reconsolidation is not universally triggered upon retrieval. Here we investigate one boundary condition thought to constrain memory reactivation: retrieval length. We also investigate the effects of a novel post-retrieval manipulation: intentional suppression. We assessed this with the think/no-think (TNT) task, in a clinically relevant sample of hazardous drinkers, using alcohol-related paired associate learning. 73 participants took part in four online sessions. On the first session participants were required to learn 36 image-word pairs. On the second session participants received 0, 4, 18 or 36 retrieval cues followed by the TNT task. The recall of the pairs was assessed 2 and 7 days after the retrieval + TNT procedure. The 4-trial retrieval procedure was the most consistent with triggering memory reconsolidation. This group showed greater practice effects and was the only group in which suppression-induced forgetting was observed at test. However, suppression-induced forgetting of alcohol cues was lower than in normative samples, indicating that intentional forgetting effects may depend upon population, salience of material and time between suppression and retrieval.

Task compliance predicts suppression-induced forgetting in a large sample

Suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) refers to a memory impairment resulting from repeated attempts to stop the retrieval of unwanted memory associates. SIF has become established in the literature through a growing number of reports built upon the Think/No-Think (TNT) paradigm. Not all individuals and not all reported experiments yield reliable forgetting, however. Given the reliance on task instructions to motivate participants to suppress target memories, such inconsistencies in SIF may reasonably owe to differences in compliance or expectations as to whether they will again need to retrieve those items (on, say, a final test). We tested these possibilities on a large (N = 497) sample of TNT participants. In addition to successfully replicating SIF, we found that the magnitude of the effect was significantly and negatively correlated with participants’ reported compliance during the No-Think trials. This pattern held true on both same- and independent-probe measures of forgetting, as well as when the analysis was conditionalized on initial learning. In contrast, test expectancy was not associated with SIF. Supporting previous intuition and more limited post-hoc examinations, this study provides robust evidence that a lack of compliance with No-Think instructions significantly compromises SIF. As such, it suggests that diminished effects in some studies may owe, at least in part, to non-compliance—a factor that should be carefully tracked and/or controlled. Motivated forgetting is possible, provided that one is sufficiently motivated and capable of following the task instructions.

Memory suppression and its deficiency in psychological disorders: A focused meta-analysis.

It is still debated whether suppressing the retrieval of unwanted memories causes forgetting and whether this constitutes a beneficial mechanism. To shed light on these 2 questions, we scrutinize the evidence for such suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) and examine whether it is deficient in psychological disorders characterized by intrusive thoughts. Specifically, we performed a focused meta-analysis of studies that have used the think/no-think procedure to test SIF in individuals either affected by psychological disorders or exhibiting high scores on related traits. Overall, across 96 effects from 25 studies, we found that avoiding retrieval leads to significant forgetting in healthy individuals, with a small to moderate effect size (0.28, 95% CI [0.14, 0.43]). Importantly, this effect was indeed larger than for more anxious (-0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, -0.02]) or depressed individuals (0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.29])-though estimates for the healthy may be inflated by publication bias. In contrast, individuals with a stronger repressive coping style showed greater SIF (0.42, 95% CI [0.32, 0.52]). Furthermore, moderator analyses revealed that SIF varied with the exact suppression mechanism that participants were instructed to engage. For healthy individuals, the effect sizes were considerably larger when instructions induced specific mechanisms of direct retrieval suppression or thought substitution than when they were unspecific. These results suggest that intact suppression-induced forgetting is a hallmark of psychological well-being, and that inducing more specific suppression mechanisms fosters voluntary forgetting. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Forgetting Unwanted Memories: Active Forgetting and Implications for the Development of Psychological Disorders.

Intrusive memories are a common feature of many psychopathologies, and suppression-induced forgetting of unwanted memories appears as a critical ability to preserve mental health. In recent years, biological and cognitive studies converged in revealing that forgetting is due to active processes. Recent neurobiological studies provide evidence on the active role of main neurotransmitter systems in forgetting, suggesting that the brain actively works to suppress retrieval of unwanted memories. On the cognitive side, there is evidence that voluntary and involuntary processes (here termed “intentional” and “incidental” forgetting, respectively) contribute to active forgetting. In intentional forgetting, an inhibitory control mechanism suppresses awareness of unwanted memories at encoding or retrieval. In incidental forgetting, retrieval practice of some memories involuntarily suppresses the retrieval of other related memories. In this review we describe recent findings on deficits in active forgetting observed in psychopathologies, like post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Moreover, we report studies in which the role of neurotransmitter systems, known to be involved in the pathogenesis of mental disorders, has been investigated in active forgetting paradigms. The possibility that biological and cognitive mechanisms of active forgetting could be considered as hallmarks of the early onset of psychopathologies is also discussed.

Sleep reactivation did not boost suppression-induced forgetting

Sleep's role in memory consolidation is widely acknowledged, but its role in weakening memories is still debated. Memory weakening is evolutionary beneficial and makes an integral contribution to cognition. We sought evidence on whether sleep-based memory reactivation can facilitate memory suppression. Participants learned pairs of associable words (e.g., DIET–CREAM) and were then exposed to hint words (e.g., DIET) and instructed to either recall (“think”) or suppress (“no-think”) the corresponding target words (e.g., CREAM). As expected, suppression impaired retention when tested immediately after a 90-min nap. To test if reactivation could selectively enhance memory suppression during sleep, we unobtrusively presented one of two sounds conveying suppression instructions during sleep, followed by hint words. Results showed that targeted memory reactivation did not enhance suppression-induced forgetting. Although not predicted, post-hoc analyses revealed that sleep cues strengthened memory, but only for suppressed pairs that were weakly encoded before sleep. The results leave open the question of whether memory suppression can be augmented during sleep, but suggest strategies for future studies manipulating memory suppression during sleep. Additionally, our findings support the notion that sleep reactivation is particularly beneficial for weakly encoded information, which may be prioritized for consolidation.

The impairing effect of acute stress on suppression-induced forgetting of future fears and its moderation by working memory capacity

Unwanted imaginations of future fears can, to some extent, be avoided. This is achieved by control mechanisms similar to those engaged to suppress and forget unwanted memories. Suppression-induced forgetting relies on the executive control network, whose functioning is impaired after exposure to acute stress. This study investigates whether acute stress affects the ability to intentionally control future fears and, furthermore, whether individual differences in executive control predict a susceptibility to these effects. The study ran over two consecutive days. On day 1, the working memory capacity of one hundred participants was assessed. Thereafter, participants provided descriptions and details of fearful episodes that they imagined might happen in their future. On day 2, participants were exposed to either the stress or no-stress version of the Maastricht Acute Stress Test, after which participants performed the Imagine/No-Imagine task. Here, participants repeatedly imagined some future fears and suppressed imaginings of others. Results demonstrated that, in unstressed participants, suppression successfully induced forgetting of the episodes’ details compared to a baseline condition. However, anxiety toward these events did not differ. Acute stress was found to selectively impair suppression-induced forgetting and, further, this effect was moderated by working memory capacity. Specifically, lower working memory predicted a susceptibility to these detrimental effects. These findings provide novel insights into conditions under which our capacity to actively control future fears is reduced, which may have considerable implications for understanding stress-related psychopathologies and symptomatologies characterized by unwanted apprehensive thoughts.

Suppression-induced forgetting diminishes following a delay of either sleep or wake

ABSTRACTWe investigated the duration of suppression-induced forgetting (SIF), and the extent to which retrieval suppression differs between negative and neutral memories. We further examined if SIF was differently affected by sleep versus wake during the delay interval between retrieval suppression and re-test. Fifty participants first learned to associate neutral words with either neutral or negative images. Then, a subset of the words was shown again, and participants were asked to either recall (Think), or to suppress retrieval of (No-Think) the associated images. Finally, a memory test for all items was performed either immediately after the Think/No-Think (T/NT) phase (No Delay), or after a 3.5 h delay interval containing either sleep or wake. Results revealed a SIF effect only in the No Delay group, indicating that this forgetting effect dissipates already after a 3.5 h delay interval. Negative items were experienced as more intrusive than neutral ones during the T/NT phase.

Electroencephalogram Evidence for Memory Suppression: A Systematic Review

Abstract Understanding how people forget is one of the fundamental goals of the science of memory. Recent studies indicate that humans can voluntarily regulate awareness of unwanted memories by stopping the retrieval process that would ordinarily bring past experience into awareness. Event-related potential (ERP) research on memory retrieval reveals that electrophysiological effects with specific timing and scalp topography serve as markers of memory processes. This systematic review examines the literature regarding EEG alterations in memory suppression, highlighting their results on electrophysiological indicators. A systematic review from January 2007 to November 2017 was conducted using PubMed, Embase and ScienceDirect databases. As results, 12 studies were eligible for inclusion. Quantitative EEG can be a objective tool for studying the mechanisms involved in memory suppression. There is evidence that a parietal positivity around 400-800ms after cue presentation is an ERP marker of conscious recollection during memory retrieval and a larger N2 deflection during retrieval suppression predicted greater suppression-induced forgetting.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger: Psychological trauma and its relationship to enhanced memory control.

Control processes engaged in halting the automatic retrieval of unwanted memories have been shown to reduce the later recallability of the targets of suppression. Like other cognitive skills that benefit from practice, we hypothesized that memory control is similarly experience dependent, such that individuals with greater real-life experience at stopping retrieval would exhibit better inhibitory control over unwanted memories. Across two experiments, we found that college students reporting a greater history of trauma exhibited more suppression-induced forgetting of both negative and neutral memories than did those in a matched group who had reported experiencing little to no trauma. The association was especially evident on a test of suppression-induced forgetting involving independent retrieval cues that are designed to better isolate the effects of inhibitory control on memory. Participants reporting more trauma demonstrated greater generalized forgetting of suppressed material. These findings raise the possibility that, given proper training, individuals can learn to better manage intrusive experiences, and are broadly consistent with the view that moderate adversity can foster resilience later in life.

Ruminators (Unlike Others) Fail to Show Suppression-Induced Forgetting on Indirect Measures of Memory

Suppression is a useful everyday skill leading to the clinically important outcome of forgetting. Suppression-induced forgetting, investigated with the think/no-think (TNT) paradigm, is typically demonstrated on direct tests of memory, even though indirect tests are often more ecologically valid. We report results from two TNT experiments terminating in indirect tests—tests that seem not to measure memory. For a subset of the participants in Experiment 1, latencies to rate word valence were delayed by flankers previously learned but not by flankers previously learned and then suppressed on 16 occasions. For a similar subset in Experiment 2, cue meaning denoted by free associations reflected the meaning established during learning, but less so when targets had been suppressed. These subsets showing suppression effects were students who did not describe themselves as ruminators. That ruminators failed to show “forgetting” on either test suggests that ruminative habits cannot be easily overcome by practicing suppression.

Cue-independent forgetting by intentional suppression – Evidence for inhibition as the mechanism of intentional forgetting

People are able to intentionally forget unwanted memories through voluntary suppression, as revealed by the Think/No-think (TNT) paradigm. However, the nature of intentional forgetting is controversial. Findings that forgetting is independent of retrieval cues suggest that inhibitory control underlies intentional forgetting, but this result is also in line with an interference account. To resolve this controversy, we have directly contrasted the cue-independent characteristic of suppression versus interference. A double-cue paradigm was used, in which two different cues were associated with the same target during initial memory formation. Only one cue-target association received further interference/suppression training. In the test phase, when both cues were used to retrieve the target, we found that interference caused memory impairment that was restricted to the trained cue-target association, while suppression induced forgetting that generalized to the independent cue-target association. Therefore, the effect of suppression differs from that of interference. The cue-independent forgetting by voluntary suppression indicates that the target memory itself is inhibited, providing evidence that the underlying mechanism of suppression-induced forgetting is inhibitory control.

The origins of repetitive thought in rumination: Separating cognitive style from deficits in inhibitory control over memory

Background and objectivesRumination is a major contributor to the maintenance of affective disorders and has been linked to memory control deficits. However, ruminators often report intentionally engaging in repetitive thought due to its perceived benefits. Deliberate re-processing may lead to the appearance of a memory control deficit that is better explained as a difference in cognitive style. MethodsNinety-six undergraduate students volunteered to take part in a direct-suppression variant of the Think/No-Think paradigm after which they completed self-report measures of rumination and the degree to which they deliberately re-processed the to-be-suppressed items. ResultsWe demonstrate a relation between rumination and impaired suppression-induced forgetting. This relation is robust even when controlling for deliberate re-processing of the to-be-suppressed items, a behavior itself related to both rumination and suppression. Therefore, whereas conscious fixation on to-be-suppressed items reduced memory suppression, it did not fully account for the relation between rumination and memory suppression. LimitationsThe current experiment employed a retrospective measure of deliberate re-processing in the context of an unscreened university sample; future research might therefore generalize our findings using an online measure of deliberate re-processing or within a clinical population. ConclusionsWe provide evidence that deliberate re-processing accounts for some – but not all – of the relation between rumination and suppression-induced forgetting. The present findings, observed in a paradigm known to engage top-down inhibitory modulation of mnemonic processing, provide the most theoretically focused evidence to date for the existence of a memory control deficit in rumination.

The suppressive power of positive thinking: Aiding suppression-induced forgetting in repressive coping

Participants scoring high and low on a measure of repressive coping style (Mendolia, 2002) first learned a series of related word pairs (cue–target). Half of the cues were homographs. In the subsequent think/no-think phase (Anderson & Green, 2001), they responded with targets on some trials and suppressed thoughts of targets on others. Suppressed targets were always emotionally negative, as were targets associated with baseline cues reserved for the final test. Some participants were provided with emotionally benign or positive substitutes to help them suppress, and these substitutes were related to different meanings of the homographic cues, compared to those established by the targets. On the final test, all cues were presented for target recall. Only the repressors significantly benefited from the provision of positive substitutes to aid forgetting of the negative targets, regardless of the nature of the cues.

Impairments in inhibition or cognitive control in psychological disorders

Contributions to this special issue of Applied & Preventive Psychology richly elucidate connections between a variety of psychological disorders and performance in a number of tasks that are used to reason about inhibitory deficits. This commentary calls attention to the different uses of the concept of inhibition – vernacular, neural, operational, and theoretical – and suggests that the term cognitive control avoids claims about dampened memory representations that are difficult to support. Central findings from the reviews are summarized; evidence concerning suppression-induced forgetting is featured and directions to foster application are discussed.