Rethinking interference theory: Executive control and the mechanisms of forgetting.

By Michael C. Anderson. 2003

965 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8cc3f96fe5610b4a82c326977150eb2c6775c703

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Construal-Level Effects on Preference Stability, Preference-Behavior Correspondence, and the Suppression of Competing Brands (2006, background): “Inhibitory processes are important for reducing distraction from competing cues and can be long lasting (Anderson, 2003).”
Theoretical issues in inhibition: Insights from research on human memory. (2007, background): “This phenomenon, known as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF), has now been replicated many times using a broad array of stimuli (for reviews, see Levy & Anderson, 2002, and Anderson, 2003).”
Age and Second Language Acquisition and Processing: A Selective Overview (2006, background): “6Among bilinguals, working memory might be involved in controlling the activation of the two languages (see Kroll & Tokowicz, 2005; Michael & Gollan, 2005), which might be tied to a general ability to suppress irrelevant information (see Anderson, 2003; Michael & Gollan). Scores on tests of working ”
Auditory Distraction in Semantic Memory: A Process-Based Approach. (2008, background): “However, with free recall instructions, where we assume retrieval is indeed likely to be based on activated semantic representations, those representations must be inhibited because they compete for retrieval (Anderson, 2003).”
The Biology of Forgetting – A Perspective (2017, background): “…literature has focused on the model whereby interfering stimuli create a problem with retrieval due to accumulated and competing memory traces (Figure 1; Bahrick and Hall, 1991; Anderson and Neely, 1996; Anderson, 2003), placing it in the passive, ‘‘retrieval interference’’ category as noted above.”
Rethinking inhibition theory: On the problematic status of the inhibition theory for forgetting (2013, background): “A final assumption of the inhibition account is the assumption of strength independence (Anderson, 2003), the assumption that the amount of inhibition is independent of the strength that the RP+ items gain in the retrieval practice phase of the experiment.”
The habitual consumer. (2009, background): “Furthermore, deactivation of alternatives does not appear to be goal dependent but to reflect a broader phenomenon in which repeatedly retrieving one item in a conceptual category reduces the accessibility of other items in that category (see retrieval induced forgetting, Anderson, 2003).”
Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind, and society (2007, background): “(Anderson 2003: 415).”
Interference control, working memory capacity, and cognitive abilities: A latent variable analysis (2010, background): “Although, both retrieval-induced forgetting and proactive interference paradigms may both require some form of “memory control” (e.g., Anderson, 2003) it is possible that they rely on different manifestations of control.”
Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure (2009, background): “First, irreversible decisions generate more negative emotions ( Anderson, 2003 ).”
Brain Mechanisms of Concept Learning (2019, background): “Although many behavioral and neuroimaging studies showed that reactivation of A during BC-learning can lead to interference and forgetting of C (Anderson, 2003; Kuhl et al., 2011), another outcome is episodic inference, where a relation is inferred between A and C.”