↓ Skip to main content

Intentional Suppression Can Lead to a Reduction of Memory Strength: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Findings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intentional Suppression Can Lead to a Reduction of Memory Strength: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Findings
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00401
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerd T. Waldhauser, Magnus Lindgren, Mikael Johansson

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the intentional suppression of unwanted memories can lead to forgetting in later memory tests. However, the mechanisms underlying this effect remain unclear. This study employed recognition memory testing and event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate whether intentional suppression leads to the inhibition of memory representations at an item level. In a think/no-think experiment, participants were cued to either suppress (no-think condition) or retrieve (think condition) previously learned words, 18 or 0 times. Performance in a final recognition test was significantly reduced for repeatedly suppressed no-think items when compared to the baseline, zero-repetition condition. ERPs recorded during the suppression of no-think items were significantly more negative-going in a time window around 300 ms when compared to ERPs in the think condition. This reduction correlated with later recognition memory impairment. Furthermore, ERPs to no-think items from 225 to 450 ms were more negative-going in later phases of the experiment, suggesting a gradual reduction of memory strength with repeated suppression attempts. These effects were dissociable from correlates of recollection (500-600 ms) and inhibitory control (450-500 ms) that did not vary over the time-course of the experiment and appeared to be under strategic control. Our results give strong evidence that the no-think manipulation involves inhibition of memory representations at an item level.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 36%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 66%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 October 2012.
All research outputs
#20,169,675
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,783
of 29,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,189
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.