Tobias Tempel

Resolving Interference between Body Movements: Retrieval-Induced Forgetting of Motor Sequences.

When body movements are stored in memory in an organized manner, linked to a common retrieval cue like the effector with which to execute the movement, interference may arise as soon as one initiates the execution of a specific body movement in the presence of the retrieval cue because related motor programs also are activated. We investigated the resolution of such interference between motor programs. Participants learned several sequential finger movements, each consisting of the movement of 2 fingers of either the left or the right hand. Subsequently, they performed retrieval practice on half of the items of 1 hand. A final recall test then assessed memory for all initially learned items. In 3 experiments, retrieval-induced forgetting occurred; that is, retrieval practice impaired the recall of unpracticed movements belonging to the practiced hand. The results suggest that retrieval-based inhibition resolved interference between motor programs pertaining to the same hand, thereby pointing to a common principle pertaining to different domains of human information processing, concerning verbal, perceptual, or motor information.

Forgetting motor programmes: retrieval dynamics in procedural memory.

When motor sequences are stored in memory in a categorised manner, selective retrieval of some sequences can induce forgetting of the non-retrieved sequences. We show that such retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) occurs not only in cued recall but also in a test assessing memory indirectly by providing novel test cues without involving recall of items. Participants learned several sequential finger movements (SFMs), each consisting of the movement of two fingers of either the left or the right hand. Subsequently, they performed retrieval practice on half of the sequences of one hand. A final task then required participants to enter letter dyads. A subset of these dyads corresponded to the previously learned sequences. RIF was present in the response times during the entering of the dyads. The finding of RIF in the slowed-down execution of motor programmes overlapping with initially trained motor sequences suggests that inhibition resolved interference between procedural representations of the acquired motor sequences of one hand during retrieval practice.

Categorization by movement direction: Retrieval-induced forgetting of motor sequences grouped by motion features

We investigated the organized storage of motor sequences in memory by assuming that processes related to interference at retrieval are indicative of memory organization. Effects resulting from these processes, thus, would allow inferences on how motor sequences are represented and organized. Participants learned motor sequences that were categorized by the direction of the initial movement. The subsequent selective retrieval of a subset of sequences of one category resulted in retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) for the non-retrieved sequences of the same category. RIF occurred in an explicit recall test (Experiment 1), as well in an implicit test assessing memory with novel cues (Experiment 2). The results suggest that RIF affected motor programmes and that other cues as the used effectors (here movement direction) can be used for the organization of procedural memory. Basic retrieval dynamics apparently operate within the declarative and procedural systems in a similar way.

Interference within hands: Retrieval-induced forgetting of left and right hand movements

We examined retrieval-induced forgetting of motor sequences that were categorized by the effectors (left or right hand) involved in their execution. This left-right categorization was independent from input locations or input devices. In addition, the acquired motor sequences were arbitrarily assigned to left and right. Participants learned twelve sequential joystick movements as responses to letter stimuli. Half of the sequences pertained to the left, half to the right hand. Subsequent retrieval-practice of half the items of one hand induced forgetting for the non-retrieved rest of the items of that hand in a final recall test. This finding demonstrates that the hands were used to organize the memory storage of motor sequences in a way that gave rise to later interference between commonly stored items, that is, linked to the same hand.

Dancing your moves away: How memory retrieval shapes complex motor action.

Human memory is subject to continuous change. Besides the accumulation of contents as a consequence of encoding new information, the accessing of memory influences later accessibility. The authors investigated how retrieval-related memory-shaping processes affect intentionally acquired complex motion patterns. Dance figures served as the material to be learned. The authors found that selectively retrieving a subset of dance moves facilitated later recall of the retrieved dance figures, whereas figures that were related to these but that did not receive selective practice suffered from forgetting. These opposing effects were shown in experiments with different designs involving either the learning of only 1 set of body movements or 2 sets of movements categorized into 2 dances. A 3rd experiment showed that selective restudy also entailed a recall benefit for restudied dance figures but did not induce forgetting for related nonrestudied dance figures. The results suggest that motor programs representing the motion patterns in a format closely corresponding to parameters of movement execution were affected. The reported experiments demonstrate how retrieval determines motor memory plasticity and emphasize the importance of separating restudy and retrieval practice when teaching people new movements.

Categorization Method Affects the Typicality Effect: ERP Evidence from a Category-Inference Task.

The typicality effect during categorization describes a phenomenon whereby typical items are more easily judged as members of a category than atypical items. Prior studies of the typicality effect have often used an inclusion task, which asks participants to assess whether an item belongs to a category. However, the correct exclusion of non-members is also an important component of effective categorization, which has yet to be directly investigated. Thus, the present study investigated how categorization method (inclusion vs. exclusion) modulates the typicality effect via behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Thirty-two participants (16 in the inclusion and 16 in the exclusion group) were shown six consecutive words that all shared one feature. Then, a seventh word was presented. The inclusion group judged whether the seventh word also possessed the feature, whereas the exclusion group judged whether the word did not possess the feature. The seventh word could be typical, atypical, or a nonmember of the category. Behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) data were collected. Behavioral results showed that the two groups did not differ in accuracy. However, typical items elicited shorter response times than atypical items, and this effect was more pronounced in the inclusion than the exclusion group. With regard to ERPs, interactions between item type and group were shown for the P2, N2, and N400 periods. Within the inclusion group, a typicality effect (indicated by a main effect of item type) was present in the P2 and N400 time windows, while the exclusion group elicited a typicality effect only in the N2 time window. These results provide electrophysiological evidence that an inclusion judgment task is more sensitive to category typicality than is an exclusion task.

Test-potentiated learning of motor sequences

ABSTRACT We investigated effects of retrieving body movements from memory on subsequent re-encoding of these movements (i.e., test-potentiated learning). In Experiment 1, participants first learned to perform 12 sequential finger movements as responses to letter stimuli. Eight of these movements then had to be recalled in response to their stimuli (initial test). Subsequently, learning trials were repeated for four of the previously to-be-retrieved movements as well as the previously not-to-be-retrieved movements. Restudy benefited from prior retrieval. In a final test, again requiring motoric recall in response to letter stimuli, performance was better for restudied items that were previously cued for retrieval as compared to items that had been restudied without prior retrieval. However, no such indirect testing benefit occurred when initial and final testing formats were incongruent, that is, when participants had to recall the stimuli in response to movements as cues at the final test. In Experiment 2, we replicated the finding of test-potentiated learning with a different design, manipulating initial-testing status between participants.

Directed forgetting benefits motor sequence encoding.

Two experiments investigated directed forgetting of newly learned motor sequences. Concurrently with the list method of directed forgetting, participants successively learned two lists of motor sequences. Each sequence consisted of four consecutive finger movements. After a short distractor task, a recall test was given. Both experiments compared a forget group that was instructed to forget list-1 items with a remember group not receiving a forget instruction. We found that the instruction to forget list 1 enhanced recall of subsequently learned motor sequences. This benefit of directed forgetting occurred independently of costs for list 1. A mediation analysis showed that the encoding accuracy of list 2 was a mediator of the recall benefit, that is, the more accurate execution of motor sequences of list 2 after receiving a forget instruction for list 1 accounted for better recall of list 2. Thus, the adaptation of the list method to motor action provided more direct evidence on the effect of directed forgetting on subsequent learning. The results corroborate the assumption of a reset of encoding as a consequence of directed forgetting.

Competition dependence of retrieval-induced forgetting in motor memory.

In two experiments, we examined the competition dependence of retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) in motor memory. Participants learned sequential finger movements as responses to letter stimuli. The learning phase comprised two parts. In both parts, half of the motor sequences were to be executed at one of two locations (the left or right side of a keyboard) by pressing the corresponding response keys. Retrieval practice of half of the motor sequences at one location induced forgetting of the nonpracticed motor sequences at that location. However, RIF was prevented in Experiment 1 when retrieval practice took place before the nonpracticed items had even been encoded. In Experiment 2, RIF was prevented by intentionally forgetting the nonpracticed motor sequences prior to retrieval practice. These results suggest that precluding competition by related items during retrieval practice precluded them from being affected by RIF. The present findings support an inhibitory account and speak against the alternative assumptions that associative blocking or a mental context change causes RIF.

How motor practice shapes memory: retrieval but not extra study can cause forgetting

We investigated the retrieval specificity of retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) of motor sequences. In two experiments, participants learned sequential finger movements, each consisting of the movement of two fingers of either the left or the right hand. In the learning phase, these motor sequences were graphically presented and were to be learned as responses to simultaneously presented letter stimuli. Subsequently, participants selectively practiced half the items of one hand. A final recall test then assessed memory for all initially learned items. We contrasted different kinds of selective practice with each other. Whereas retrieval practice required retrieving motor sequences in response to letter stimuli from the learning phase, extra study was an extension of the learning phase, that is, participants performed motor sequences in response to the same animation graphic display as in the learning phase again accompanied by the letter stimulus. All practice conditions strengthened the practiced items, but only retrieval practice resulted in RIF. Thus, the strengthening of items through practice did not suffice to induce forgetting of related motor sequences. Retrieval was a necessary component for practice to shape memory for body movements by impairing the subsequent recall of motor sequences that were related to the practiced motor sequences.