ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
To-be-forgotten information shows more relative forgetting over time than to-be-remembered information.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Forgetting Strategies on Memory Performance: Behavioral and Electroencephalography Evidence.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Reinstating memories' temporal context at encoding causes Sisyphus-like memory rejuvenation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Pupil Fluctuations Signal Intentional Forgetting of Natural Scenes.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Effect of delay interval and cue focality on prospective memory.BMC psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People can intentionally forget studied material when cued to do so. Corresponding evidence has arisen from studies on item-method directed forgetting, in which participants are asked to forget single items directly upon presentation. We measured memory performance of to-be-remembered (TBR) and to-be-forgotten (TBF) items across retention intervals of up to 1 week and fitted power functions of time to the observed recall (Experiment 1) and recognition (Experiment 2) rates. In both experiments and each retention interval condition, memory performance for the TBR items was higher than for the TBF items, supporting the view that directed forgetting effects are lasting. Recall and recognition rates of both TBR and TBF items were well fit by the power function. However, the relative forgetting rates of the two item types differed, with a higher forgetting rate for the TBF than the TBR items. The findings are consistent with the view that TBR and TBF items differ (mainly) in recruitment of rehearsal processes and resulting memory strength.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.