Cited by 283Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Retrieval induces adaptive forgetting of competing memories via cortical pattern suppression

Open access
Wimber, Maria, Alink, Arjen, Charest, Ian, Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus, Anderson, Michael C·2015·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Remembering a past experience can, surprisingly, cause forgetting. Forgetting arises when other competing traces interfere with retrieval and inhibitory control mechanisms are engaged to suppress the distraction they cause. This form of forgetting is considered to be adaptive because it reduces future interference. The effect of this proposed inhibition process on competing memories has, however, never been observed, as behavioral methods are 'blind' to retrieval dynamics and neuroimaging methods have not isolated retrieval of individual memories. We developed a canonical template tracking method to quantify the activation state of individual target memories and competitors during retrieval. This method revealed that repeatedly retrieving target memories suppressed cortical patterns unique to competitors. Pattern suppression was related to engagement of prefrontal regions that have been implicated in resolving retrieval competition and, critically, predicted later forgetting. Thus, our findings demonstrate a cortical pattern suppression mechanism through which remembering adaptively shapes which aspects of our past remain accessible.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.3973

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wimber, M., Alink, A., Charest, I., Kriegeskorte, N., & Anderson, M. C.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Wimber, Maria
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2015-03-16
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
582-589
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W1977249777
Cited by
282
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12
FWCI
17.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
adaptive forgetting, memory retrieval, episodic memory, inhibitory control, prefrontal cortex, template tracking, memory interference, retrieval dynamics
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Brain Mapping, Cues, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Mental Recall, Visual Cortex, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review