Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, United States of America.
Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (SUNY), United States of America.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Dec;82:101926. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101926. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
This paper reviews and critically assesses the implications of directed forgetting (DF) research on clinical populations. We begin by reviewing the typical methods and results of the item method and list method directed forgetting procedures and provide best practice recommendations for future studies using clinical populations. Next, we note that DF was often interpreted as being due to inhibition, and when clinical populations showed impaired directed forgetting, it was treated as evidence in inhibitory control difficulties. However, inhibition may not be the cause of DF effects, based on current understanding of these cognitive tasks. We instead suggest that item method DF is tied to attentional control, which might include inhibitory mechanisms (or might not). In contrast, list method DF is tied to two forms of memory control: control of mental context (indicated by effective forgetting of List 1), and changes in the strategies used to remember (indicated by better learning of List 2). We review the current state of the clinical DF literature, assess its strength based on our best practice recommendations, and call for more research when warranted.
本文回顾和批判性地评估了定向遗忘（DF）研究对临床人群的影响。我们首先回顾了项目法和列表法定向遗忘程序的典型方法和结果，并为未来使用临床人群的研究提供了最佳实践建议。接下来，我们注意到，DF 通常被解释为抑制的结果，而当临床人群表现出定向遗忘受损时，它被视为抑制控制困难的证据。然而，根据对这些认知任务的当前理解，抑制可能不是 DF 效应的原因。相反，我们认为项目法 DF 与注意力控制有关，这可能包括抑制机制（也可能没有）。相比之下，列表法 DF 与两种形式的记忆控制有关：心理语境的控制（由 List1 的有效遗忘表示），以及用于记忆的策略的变化（由 List2 的更好学习表示）。我们回顾了目前的临床 DF 文献状况，根据我们的最佳实践建议评估其强度，并呼吁在必要时进行更多的研究。
