2,680
Views
12
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

The impact of retrieval suppression on conceptual implicit memory

, &
Pages 686-697 | Received 10 Jan 2018, Accepted 25 Nov 2018, Published online: 07 Dec 2018
 

ABSTRACT

When people suppress retrieval of episodic memories, it can induce forgetting on later direct tests of memory for those events. Recent reports indicate that suppressing retrieval affects less conscious, unintentional retrieval of unwanted memories as well, at least on perceptually-oriented indirect tests. In the current study we examined how suppressing retrieval affects conceptual implicit memory for the suppressed content, using a category verification task. Participants studied cue-target words pairs in which the targets were exemplars of 22 semantic categories, such as vegetables or occupations. They then repeatedly retrieved or suppressed the targets in response to the cues for some of those pairs. Afterwards, they were exposed to the targets intermixed with novel items, one at a time, and asked to verify the membership of each of the words in a semantic category, as quickly as possible. Judgment response times to studied words were faster than to unstudied exemplars, reflecting repetition priming, as has been previously observed. Strikingly, the beneficial effects of prior exposure on response time were eliminated for targets that had been suppressed. Follow-up explicit memory tests also demonstrated that retrieval suppression continued to disrupt episodic recall for the items that had been just been re-exposed on the category verification test. These findings support the contention that the effects of retrieval suppression are not limited to episodic memory, but also affect indirect expressions of those memories on conceptually oriented tests, raising the possibility that underlying semantic representations of suppressed content are affected.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by UK Medical Research Council grant MC-A060-5PR00 awarded to M.C.A.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by UK Medical Research Council [grant number MC-A060-5PR00].