↓ Skip to main content

A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
176 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
Title
A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting
Published in
Memory & Cognition, May 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13421-012-0211-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin C. Storm, Benjamin J. Levy

Abstract

Remembering and forgetting reflect fundamentally interdependent processes in human memory (Bjork, 2011). This interdependency is particularly apparent in research on retrieval-induced forgetting, which has shown that retrieving a subset of information can cause the forgetting of other information (Anderson et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 20:1063-1087, 1994). According to one prominent theoretical account, retrieval-induced forgetting is caused by an inhibitory process that acts to resolve competition during retrieval. Specifically, when cues activate competing, contextually inappropriate responses, those responses are claimed to be inhibited in order to facilitate the retrieval of target responses (Anderson Journal of Memory and Language 49: 415-445, 2003; Levy & Anderson Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 299-305, 2002; Storm, 2011b). Interest in retrieval-induced forgetting has grown steadily over the past two decades. In fact, a search of the abstracts at the 5th International Conference on Memory (ICOM, York University, 2011) revealed 40 presentations specifically mentioning "retrieval-induced forgetting," and nearly twice that number referring to the concept of inhibition. Clearly, researchers are interested in the empirical phenomenon of retrieval-induced forgetting, and inhibition is gaining increasing attention as a mechanism involved in memory. The goal of the present progress report is to critically review the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting and to provide direction so that future research can have a more meaningful impact on our understanding of human memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Japan 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 199 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 19%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 44 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 114 54%
Neuroscience 10 5%
Linguistics 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 53 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2023.
All research outputs
#791,438
of 23,410,748 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#56
of 1,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,119
of 164,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,410,748 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.