Intention matters more than attention: Item-method directed forgetting of items at attended and unattended locations

Tracy L. Taylor,Jeff P. Hamm
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x
2021-01-06
Abstract:This study embedded attentional cues in the study phase of an item-method directed forgetting task. We used an unpredictive onset cue (Experiment <a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec1">1</a>), a predictive onset cue (Experiment <a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec8">2</a>), or a predictive central cue (Experiments <a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec15">3</a>–<a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec38">6</a>) to direct attention to the left or right. In Experiments <a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec1">1</a>–<a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec29">5</a>, this was followed by a pink or blue study word that required a speeded colour discrimination; in Experiment <a href="/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02220-x#Sec38">6</a>, it was followed by a pink or blue word or nonword that required a lexical decision. Each study word was followed by an instruction to Remember or Forget. A yes–no recognition test confirmed better recognition of to-be-remembered words than to-be-forgotten words; a cueing effect confirmed the effectiveness of predictive cues in allocating attentional resources. There was, however, no evidence that the directed forgetting effect differed for attended and unattended words: Encoding depends more on the memory intention formed after a study word has disappeared than on the availability of processing resources when that word first appears.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?