Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall

Collaborative inhibition effect: the role of memory task and retrieval method

It is well established that the recall of collaborative groups is lower than the pooled recall of an equal number of lone individuals-the collaborative inhibition effect (Weldon and Bellinger, J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 23(5):1160-1175, 1997). This is arguably the case because group members have conflicting retrieval strategies that disrupt each other's recall-the retrieval strategies disruption hypothesis (Basden et al., J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 23(5):1176-1191, 1997). In two experiments, we further examined this hypothesis by testing whether the memory task (free recall vs. serial recall) and the recall method (turn-taking vs. unconstraint) moderate collaborative inhibition. Experiment 1 compared the performance of collaborative and nominal groups in a free recall and a serial recall task. Results revealed collaborative inhibition in free recall, but this effect was reduced in serial recall. In Experiment 2, collaborative and nominal performance was compared in the same tasks with collaborative but also nominal groups, using the turn-taking method. The collaborative inhibition effect was still observed in free recall, although to a lesser extent when participants in nominal groups used the turn-taking method. In the serial recall task, the collaborative inhibition effect was eliminated. Taken together, these results further support retrieval strategies disruption as an explanation for the collaborative inhibition effect.

Inhibitory Process of Collaborative Inhibition: Assessment Using an Emotional Stroop Task

This study investigated the inhibitory process of collaborative inhibition. An emotional Stroop task was manipulated three times after a group-recall task across three experiments. The results showed that, when participants performed an emotional Stroop task immediately after a group-recall task (Experiment 1) or between two subsequent individual-recall tasks after a group-recall task (Experiment 3), they were able to discriminate color information relating to studied but nonrecalled emotional stimuli more rapidly in the collaborative-recall condition than in the nominal-recall condition. This indicated that participants experienced a stronger inhibition effect in the former condition. However, when the emotional Stroop task was performed after the final individual-recall task (Experiment 2), there were no differences in discrimination between the conditions. These results suggest that the inhibition effect occurs immediately after the group-recall phase and lasts until the final individual-recall task is completed (4 minutes or longer in Experiment 3). It is therefore possible to discuss retrieval inhibition as an underlying mechanism of collaborative inhibition.

Younger and older adults' collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures

Although a group of people working together recalls more items than any one individual, they recall fewer unique items than the same number of people working apart whose responses are combined. This is known as collaborative inhibition, and it is a robust effect that occurs for both younger and older adults. However, almost all previous studies documenting collaborative inhibition have used stimuli that were neutral in emotional valence, low in arousal, and studied by all group members. In the current experiments, we tested the impact of picture-stimuli valence, picture-stimuli arousal, and information distribution in modulating the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. We included both younger and older adults because there are age differences in how people remember emotional pictures that could modulate any effects of emotion on collaborative inhibition. Results revealed that when information was shared (i.e., studied by all group members), there were robust collaborative inhibition effects for both neutral and emotional stimuli for both younger and older adults. However, when information was unshared (i.e., studied by only a single group member), these effects were attenuated. Together, these results provide mixed support for the retrieval strategy disruption account of collaborative inhibition. Supporting the retrieval strategy disruption account, unshared study information was less susceptible to collaborative inhibition than shared study information. Contradicting the retrieval strategy disruption account, emotional valence and arousal did not modulate the magnitude of collaborative inhibition despite the fact that participants clustered the emotional, but not neutral, information together in memory.

The Effect of Item Similarity and Response Competition Manipulations on Collaborative Inhibition in Group Recall

Collaborative inhibition refers to when people working together remember less than their predicted potential. The most common explanation for this effect is the retrieval-disruption hypothesis during collaborative recall. However, several recent studies have obtained conflicting results concerning this hypothesis. In the current study, item similarity was manipulated in Experiment 1 by requiring participants to study overlapping or non-overlapping unrelated wordlists. The unstructured instructions were then manipulated during a turn-taking recall task between conditions. The results showed that collaborative inhibition occurred for both overlapping and non-overlapping conditions. Subsequently, response competition during collaborative recall, in addition to item similarity, was manipulated in Experiment 2, and the results showed that when collaborative group members were instructed to recall in turn and monitor their partner's recall (the medium- and high-response-competition conditions), collaborative inhibition occurred. However, no such effect was shown when collaborative group members were instructed not to communicate with each other, but to simply recall in turn while in a group (low-response-competition condition). Together, these results suggest that the conflicts between the findings of the aforementioned studies were probably caused by differing instructions, which induced response competition in collaborative settings. Aside from retrieval-disruption, other possible mechanisms underlying collaborative inhibition were also discussed.

Comorbidities confounding the outcomes of surgery for third window syndrome: Outlier analysis

Objective

Patients with third window syndrome and superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD) symptoms whose surgical outcomes placed them as outliers were systematically studied to determine comorbidities that were responsible for their poor outcomes due to these confounding factors.

Study Design

Observational analytic case-control study in a tertiary referral center.

Methods

Twelve adult patients with clinical SSCD syndrome underwent surgical management and had outcomes that did not resolve all of their subjective symptoms. In addition to one of the neurotologists, 2 neurologists (one specializing in migraine and the other a neuro-ophthalmologist), and a psychologist clinician-investigator completed comprehensive evaluations. Neuropsychology test batteries included: the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic; Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7); Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale; the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, including the 3 domains of verbal memory, visual memory, and attention/concentration; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; and the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System. The control cohort was comprised of 17 participants who previously underwent surgery for third window syndrome that resulted in the expected outcomes of resolution of their third window syndrome symptoms and cognitive dysfunction.

Results

There was a high rate of psychological comorbidity (n = 6) in the outlier cohort; multiple traumatic brain injuries were also a confounding element (n = 10). One patient had elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure requiring ventriculoperitoneal shunting to control the recurrence of dehiscence and one patient with a drug-induced Parkinson-like syndrome and idiopathic progressive neurological degenerative process.

Conclusions

Components of the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 results suggest that these instruments would be useful as screening tools preoperatively to identify psychological comorbidities that could confound outcomes. The identification of these comorbid psychological as well as other neurological degenerative disease processes led to alternate clinical management pathways for these patients.

Level of Evidence

2b.

The influence of multiple trials and computer-mediated communication on collaborative and individual semantic recall

Collaborative inhibition is a phenomenon where collaborating groups experience a decrement in recall when interacting with others. Despite this, collaboration has been found to improve subsequent individual recall. We explore these effects in semantic recall, which is seldom studied in collaborative retrieval. We also examine "parallel CMC", a synchronous form of computer-mediated communication that has previously been found to improve collaborative recall [Hinds, J. M., & Payne, S. J. (2016). Collaborative inhibition and semantic recall: Improving collaboration through computer-mediated communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 554-565]. Sixty three triads completed a semantic recall task, which involved generating words beginning with "PO" or "HE" across three recall trials, in one of three retrieval conditions: Individual-Individual-Individual (III), Face-to-face-Face-to-Face-Individual (FFI) and Parallel-Parallel-Individual (PPI). Collaborative inhibition was present across both collaborative conditions. Individual recall in Recall 3 was higher when participants had previously collaborated in comparison to recalling three times individually. There was no difference between face-to-face and parallel CMC recall, however subsidiary analyses of instance repetitions and subjective organisation highlighted differences in group members' approaches to recall in terms of organisation and attention to others' contributions. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to retrieval strategy disruption.

Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory

Although a group of people working together remembers more than any one individual, they recall less than their predicted potential. This finding is known as collaborative inhibition and is generally thought to arise due to retrieval disruption. However, there is growing evidence that is inconsistent with the retrieval disruption account, suggesting that additional mechanisms also contribute to collaborative inhibition. In the current studies, we examined 2 alternate mechanisms: retrieval inhibition and retrieval blocking. To identify the contributions of retrieval disruption, retrieval inhibition, and retrieval blocking, we tested how collaborative recall of entirely unshared information influences subsequent individual recall and individual recognition memory. If collaborative inhibition is due solely to retrieval disruption, then there should be a release from the negative effects of collaboration on subsequent individual recall and recognition tests. If it is due to retrieval inhibition, then the negative effects of collaboration should persist on both individual recall and recognition memory tests. Finally, if it is due to retrieval blocking, then the impairment should persist on subsequent individual free recall, but not recognition, tests. Novel to the current study, results suggest that retrieval inhibition plays a role in the collaborative inhibition effect. The negative effects of collaboration persisted on a subsequent, always-individual, free-recall test (Experiment 1) and also on a subsequent, always-individual, recognition test (Experiment 2). However, consistent with the retrieval disruption account, this deficit was attenuated (Experiment 1). Together, these results suggest that, in addition to retrieval disruption, multiple mechanisms play a role in collaborative inhibition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

The Collaborative Encoding Deficit is Attenuated with Specific Warnings

Individuals learning together do so less effectively than individuals learning alone, an effect known as the collaborative encoding deficit (Barber, Rajaram, & Aron, 2010). In the present studies we examined whether providing participants with a warning about the collaborative encoding deficit would increase their encoding task performance, and reduce subsequent memory deficits. Across two experiments, specific warnings were beneficial for memory. Collaborating participants who were told about the collaborative encoding deficit, and who received suggestions for how to complete the encoding task, had superior memory than participants who received no warning. This benefit was not due to qualitative changes in encoding task performance, was unrelated to the type of collaboration utilized, was absent when a more general warning was utilized, and was unrelated to self-reported task motivation. Rather, specific warnings appear to protect against the collaborative encoding deficit by increasing time spent on, and attention directed to, the encoding task.