Dancing your moves away: How memory retrieval shapes complex motor action.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2015, Vol. 21, No. 3, 300 –312

© 2015 American Psychological Association 1076-898X/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000052

Dancing Your Moves Away: How Memory Retrieval Shapes Complex Motor Action Tobias Tempel, Igor Loran, and Christian Frings

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Trier Human memory is subject to continuous change. Besides the accumulation of contents as a consequence of encoding new information, the accessing of memory influences later accessibility. The authors investigated how retrieval-related memory-shaping processes affect intentionally acquired complex motion patterns. Dance figures served as the material to be learned. The authors found that selectively retrieving a subset of dance moves facilitated later recall of the retrieved dance figures, whereas figures that were related to these but that did not receive selective practice suffered from forgetting. These opposing effects were shown in experiments with different designs involving either the learning of only 1 set of body movements or 2 sets of movements categorized into 2 dances. A 3rd experiment showed that selective restudy also entailed a recall benefit for restudied dance figures but did not induce forgetting for related nonrestudied dance figures. The results suggest that motor programs representing the motion patterns in a format closely corresponding to parameters of movement execution were affected. The reported experiments demonstrate how retrieval determines motor memory plasticity and emphasize the importance of separating restudy and retrieval practice when teaching people new movements. Keywords: human memory, motor learning, retrieval-induced forgetting Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000052.supp

Practice seems to be especially effective if it involves retrieval, however. The testing effect denotes the phenomenon that retrieval improves memory for the retrieved information more strongly than mere repetition (Allen, Mahler, & Estes, 1969; Bjork, 1975; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Whereas most studies concerned with the benefits of retrieval relied on verbal material, it has been suggested that retrieval is also a crucial component in the practice of body movements (cf. Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). However, studies only recently explicitly focused on testing effects in motor action, demonstrating, for example, that testing improved the generalization of a dynamic arm movement skill (Boutin, Panzer, & Blandin, 2013; Boutin, Panzer, Salesse, & Blandin, 2012) or that testing enhanced the retention of resuscitation skills (Kromann, Jensen, & Ringsted, 2009). Practice does not come without costs, though. It might seem somewhat paradoxical, but it is well established that retrieving information from memory can cause forgetting of related nonretrieved information (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). Generally speaking, retrieval shapes human memory in opposing ways, by strengthening some and weakening other information. The phenomenon of retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) has been demonstrated for a variety of materials, mostly verbal material (for reviews, see Levy & Anderson, 2002; Storm & Levy, 2012) that is represented in declarative memory (Eichenbaum, 2000; Squire, 1992). Recent studies suggest that RIF also affects procedural memory (Reppa, Worth, Greville, & Saunders, 2013; Tempel & Frings, 2013, 2014a, 2014c, 2015) in which motor behavior is represented. In these studies, the items consisted of very simple motor sequences. For example, participants learned to consecutively press two keys of a PC keyboard in response to letter stimuli

Smooth dance moves require thorough practice. Most people attend dance lessons at one point of their lives or another, be it during school or as part of wedding preparations. Dancing consists of body movements that you acquire by remembering dance steps and repeating their execution over and over again (in this regard dancing is just one example of complex motor behavior in general). Mastery of complex movements can be achieved only by a sufficient degree of practice. There are various ways of practicing body movements, of course. Exercises may focus on exact repetition of movement patterns or on the generalization and transfer of skills. Feedback may be given permanently or sparsely, immediately, or after a delay. The investigation of such variables suggests that comparing the efficiency of different training techniques depends on the outcome of interest. For example, blocked practice of motor tasks is associated with faster acquisition than random practice, whereas retention (i.e., performance in a delayed test) is better after random practice (Goode & Magill, 1986; Shea & Morgan, 1979). Similarly, varying parameters of a motor task hampers performance during acquisition but is beneficial for skill transfer in a retention test (e.g., Catalano & Kleiner, 1984).

This article was published Online First July 20, 2015. Tobias Tempel, Igor Loran, and Christian Frings, Fachbereich I—Psychologie, University of Trier. This work was supported by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Grant TE 891/3–1). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tobias Tempel, Fachbereich I—Psychologie, University of Trier, 54286 Trier, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 300


DANCING YOUR MOVES AWAY

presented on the PC screen. The subsequent selective retrieval practice of some motor sequences induced forgetting for related motor sequences. The recall of related, nonretrieved motor sequences was impaired compared with baseline memory performance in a final test assessing memory for all initially learned motor sequences. Although it is still under debate which cognitive processes contribute to RIF—for example whether it relies on cognitive inhibition (Raaijmakers & Jakab, 2013; Storm & Levy, 2012) or to which extent it is context dependent (Jonker, Seli, & MacLeod, 2013; Perfect et al., 2004; Verde & Perfect, 2011)—the tentative extension of RIF from declarative to procedural memory suggests that RIF is an essential cognitive tool shaping human memory across systems. However, from the existing research on RIF it is unclear in which regard the observed findings are of relevance to other kinds of behavior than the investigated highly restrained responses. In a similar way, this is not only true for RIF but also for related memory phenomena, for example, the suppression of memories in the think/no-think paradigm (Anderson & Green, 2001) or directed forgetting (Bjork, 1972; Golding & MacLeod, 1998). Learning and retrieving artificial and simple materials might lead to RIF in the experimental laboratory, but it might in the end not tell us anything about the way complex behavior is organized (cf. Neisser & Winograd, 1988). It has even been argued that factors determining the learning of simple motor behavior do not generalize to the learning of complex body movements (Wulf & Shea, 2002). For example, with regard to the influence of feedback on learning success, it has been shown that frequent feedback is detrimental to the acquisition of simple motor skills (e.g., Weeks & Kordus, 1998; Winstein & Schmidt, 1990), whereas frequent feedback can be beneficial for the learning of complex motor action (e.g., Guadagnoli, Dornier, & Tandy, 1996; Yao, Fischman, & Wang, 1994). Therefore, it could be expected that complex motion patterns might not be affected by retrieval dynamics in the same way as simple motor responses. Retrieval-induced forgetting is a consequence of selective retrieval practice. It must be assumed that retrieval practice is a natural component of training in a multitude of areas. In some applied contexts RIF has already been demonstrated, for example, in eyewitness memory (e.g., Shaw, Bjork, & Handal, 1995) or social conversations (e.g., Coman, Manier, & Hirst, 2009). With regard to educational contexts, it has been argued that protecting influences, such as the meaningful integration of facts in school textbooks to be learned may usually preclude RIF (Chan, 2009; Chan, McDermott, & Roediger, 2006; but for conflicting evidence see Carroll, Campbell-Ratcliffe, Murnane, & Perfect, 2007). The training of complex motor action is a further educational context. Here, an immunization against RIF might be less likely to occur because the meaningful integration of material to be learned of course necessitates linking words to an existing semantic network, but novel motor sequences lack corresponding semantic representations. If RIF also affects complex body movements, it needs to be taken into account for the application of training techniques. By investigating whether selective retrieval practice could cause forgetting of nonretrieved dance moves, we focused on two central questions. First, is complex motor action that exceeds simple key presses affected by RIF? Second, is the phenomenon present in behavior that also appears outside of the laboratory, in everyday life? The learning of new dance figures clearly involves complex

301

movement patterns. The whole body is in motion. The feet are positioned on defined spots relative to preceding steps. Moreover, besides the correct order, the movements also have to correspond to a given rhythm. At the same time, dancing is an important realm of human life. It is embedded in fun activities, social events, and cultural heritage. If RIF occurs for dance figures, it can certainly occur in all those contexts that involve practicing complex movement patterns. Becoming aware of this consequence of retrieval practice might help to improve, among others, training sports and music.

Experiment 1 In Experiment 1, participants initially learned four dance figures labeled with distinctive names, each consisting of eight steps (see Figure 1). They saw a video in which a dance instructor demonstrated the figures. Participants mimicked him. Two experimental groups were compared. Subsequent to the learning phase, the first group (RP group) performed retrieval practice on two of the four dance figures (practiced items). The names of two figures appeared one after the other on a black screen, preceded by a demonstration of the first two steps, and participants were supposed to execute the corresponding figure. The other two figures were not retrievalpracticed (nonpracticed items). In contrast, in the second group (control group) no items received retrieval practice (control items). The final recall test was identical for both groups. In succession, all four names of the initially learned figures were presented against a black background, and participants were supposed to execute the corresponding figure. Participants were videotaped. Two judges who were blind to the experimental condition rated the number of correctly recalled dance steps.

Method Participants. Eighty-four undergraduate students (64 women, 20 men) at the University of Trier participated in exchange for course credit (mean age ⫽ 22.1, SD ⫽ 2.3). Because of video recording errors, the data of four participants were missing, for

Figure 1. One of the four dance figures in Experiment 1 is shown. In the learning phase, participants saw a video showing a dance instructor performing the dance figure. Participants immediately mimicked his performance. They were instructed to execute the dance steps as closely corresponding as possible. A light green (gray) footprint indicates that the respective foot is in motion. A dark gray footprint indicates that the foot is standing still. The half green– half gray (half light gray– half dark gray) footprint at the fourth step indicates that the forefoot is in motion while the heel rests, that is, the right forefoot is elevated and dropped. See the online article for the color version of this figure.


302

TEMPEL, LORAN, AND FRINGS

whom four compensatory participants were tested to attain the intended sample size of 80. This should suffice to detect mediumsize effects. Design. Retrieval-practice status was manipulated between participants. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Whereas the RP group performed retrieval practice on half the items after the learning phase, there was no retrieval practice in the control group. Retrieval-practice status, thus, comprised three types: control items (in the control group), practiced items (in the RP group), and nonpracticed items (also in the RP group). In the final recall test, nonpracticed items were tested before practiced items in the RP group to preclude output interference (Roediger & Schmidt, 1980) by practiced items on the recall of nonpracticed items, as is usual in the investigation of RIF (Anderson et al., 1994). Output interference is the phenomenon that the probability of successful recall decreases with the recall position of items. Nonpracticed items, hence, were compared with the first two items tested in the control group, and practiced items were compared with the last two items tested in the control group. Counterbalancing of the items selected for retrieval practice in the RP group and counterbalancing of the test sequence of control items in the final recall test ensured that the results would not be contaminated by item-specific influences. Materials. The experiment was conducted in three laboratory rooms of the University of Trier. The technical equipment comprised a personal computer, speaker boxes, and a camcorder in each laboratory room. The camcorder was aimed at the participants’ feet to record the participants’ performance during retrieval practice and the final recall test. In addition, there were sheets of paper containing instructions, a written consent form, a pen, and a tape mark on the floor. A moderately difficult Sudoku puzzle printed on a sheet of paper served as a distractor task before the final recall test. A video showing a professional dance instructor presented the items. Four dance figures were designed to serve as the four items to be learned. The dance figures were labeled Alacran, Tamambo, Elegua, and Pachanga (see Appendix). In many dance styles the basic steps are symmetrical; that is, when a person moves to the left, this movement is reflected on the right side, so they are identical to each other. Hence, one might predict from the first half of the steps the second half of the dance figure. To preclude such predictions, we designed all dance figures asymmetrically. The dance instructor demonstrated the dance figures while simultaneously denominating the individual steps by the terms step (full sole of foot touches the ground), tap (only the toes touch the ground), cross, out, open, right, left, forward, and back at the first demonstrations. All dance figures began with the left foot and followed a one-bar beat; that is, there was a dance step on each bar. The starting position was upright with closed feet for all dance figures (see Figure 1). Procedure. The experiment consisted of four phases in the RP group and three phases in the control group [learning, retrieval practice (does not apply for the control group), distractor task, and final recall]. In the learning phase, participants watched a video on the computer screen showing a dance instructor demonstrating the dance figures accompanied by oral instructions (see Video S1 in the online supplementary material). Participants had to simultaneously join the presented movements, mimic the instructor’s moves, and memorize them in connection with the presented names. The

names were stated by the instructor and displayed on the video. Participants learned the dance figures in the learning phase in the following order: Alacran, Tamambo, Elegua, Pachanga. The learning of the four dance figures all corresponded to the same scheme. First, the eight steps of a dance figure were presented slowly to make it possible that the participants could immediately join them, supported by a concise instruction. For example, the instructor crossed with his left foot diagonally forward and said “cross,” then took a step with his right foot on the same place and said “step,” and so forth. After five repetitions, the instructor replaced oral instruction by counting. For example, the dance instructor crossed with his left foot diagonally forward and said “one,” then took a step with his right foot on the same place and said “two,” and so forth. The counting numbers represented the audible beats of the bar (eight beats per bar/eight steps per dance figure). The slow counting was also repeated five times in a row. Afterward, the speed was increased to seconds-rhythm and repeated 10 times while the counting of steps continued. Finally the dance figure was presented with a counted piece of music (salsa). To make sure that the participant could recognize the rhythm, the dance instructor announced the name of the dance figure at the fifth bar beating. In doing so, the participant could get ready for the performance. With the next one of a bar the performance of the dance figure started on the video. After performing this dance figure a whole bar was included as a break, the dance figure was again announced on five, and on one it was performed. The dancing to music took approximately 2 min. The dance figure was repeated 13 times. On the whole, the slow explanation, slow bar counting, bar counting in seconds-speed, and dancing to music took approximately 6:45 min per dance figure. Consequently, the learning phase took about 27 min for all four dance figures. Immediately after the learning phase, retrieval practice followed in the RP group. Participants retrieval practiced two dance figures. The experimenter started a new video file in which the dance instructor appeared again. After playing the counted piece of music for one bar, he announced the dance figure at the fifth bar beat, as he had done in the last part of the learning phase. As soon as the next bar began, the instructor began performing the dance figure and continued till the second beat inclusive. Then, the screen turned black so that the dance instructor’s movements were not visible anymore. The participants thus had to complete the dance figure without further help. They had three bars’ time before the second dance figure was announced on “five.” This was done in the same way as the first dance figure. The participants saw the first two steps, saw the screen turned black, and had to complete the second dance figure. After three bars again the first dance figure was cued. All in all, the retrieval-practice phase comprised four cycles of practice for the two dance figures and lasted 4 min. It was counterbalanced between participants whether Alacran and Tamambo or Elegua and Pachanga received retrieval practice. After the retrieval-practice phase in the RP group or after the learning phase in the control group, participants worked on the distractor task, a moderately difficult Sudoku puzzle. The experimenter interrupted participants after 5 min. In the final recall test, the participants were asked to perform all initially learned dance figures in response to the item names displayed on a black screen accompanied by the same counted piece of music as before. In contrast to the retrieval-practice phase,


the dance instructor did not demonstrate the first two steps of the dance figures. Two test sequences (Alacran, Tamambo, Elegua, Pachanga or Elegua, Pachanga, Alacran, Tamambo) were counterbalanced between participants. In the RP group, the retrievalpracticed dance figures were tested after the nonpracticed dance figures.


Results Mean retrieval-practice success was 5.80 steps per dance figure (SD ⫽ 2.14). In the final recall test, we included test sequence as a control factor in the analyses of RIF and retrieval benefit. Two (Test Sequence) ⫻ 2 (Experimental Group) between-participants analyses of variance (ANOVAs) examined the number of recalled dance steps of the first two dance figures tested, that is, RIF. Two (Test Sequence) ⫻ 2 (Experimental Group) between-participants ANOVAs examined the number of recalled dance steps of the last two dance figures tested, that is, retrieval benefit. Two alternative scoring schemes were used for the number of recalled steps serving as the dependent variable. Conservative scoring considered dance steps only as recalled if dance steps were performed that corresponded to the displayed name. Liberal scoring counted dance steps as recalled if they corresponded to one of the four dance figures irrespective of whether they were performed in response to the corresponding name or not. Under the conservative scoring scheme, significantly fewer steps of nonpracticed items in the RP group were recalled than steps of control items, F(1, 76) ⫽ 4.61, p ⫽ .035, ␩p2 ⫽ .06 (see Figure 2). The main effect of test sequence also was significant, F(1, 76) ⫽ 59.33, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .44, but the interaction was not, F ⬍ 1. With regard to retrieval benefit, significantly more steps of practiced items were recalled than steps of control items, F(1, 76) ⫽ 13.66, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .15. Again, the main effect of test sequence was also significant, F(1, 76) ⫽ 36.67, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .33, but the interaction was not, F ⬍ 1. Under the liberal scoring scheme, the results were very similar. Significantly fewer steps of nonpracticed items in the RP group (M ⫽ 4.1) were recalled than steps of control items (M ⫽ 5.2), F(1, 76) ⫽ 7.32, p ⫽ .008, ␩p2 ⫽ .09. The main effect of test sequence was significant, F(1, 76) ⫽ 78.23, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .51, but the interaction was not, F ⬍ 1. With regard to retrieval benefit, significantly more steps of practiced items (M ⫽ 6.6) were recalled than steps of control items (M ⫽ 5.1), F(1, 76) ⫽ 18.82, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .20. Again, the main effect of test sequence was significant F(1, 76) ⫽ 36.89, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .33, but the interaction was not, F ⬍ 1.

Discussion The selective retrieval practice of dance figures shaped memory by being beneficial for the subsequent recall of the practiced figures but also by inducing forgetting for the nonpracticed figures. Participants learned four dance figures all accompanied by the same piece of music that were not divided into separate sets. Therefore, it is not clear whether the observed effects are confined to sets of organized memories, as RIF typically is. In fact, RIF is a phenomenon that occurs within categories of stored memories. If participants selectively retrieve items of one category, this retrieval practice induces forgetting for items of the same category compared to items of a different category. Accordingly, many studies

303

required participants to learn items that were organized into several sets. In addition, a within-participants manipulation of retrieval-practice status allows precluding that a difference in the length of delays between the learning and the test phase might account for RIF in a between-participants design. In Experiment 1, the delay, in fact, had been a bit shorter in the control condition than in the practice condition because participants proceeded directly with the 5-min distractor without retrieval practice after the learning phase.

Experiment 2 In Experiment 2, participants also learned four dance figures. However, these were grouped into two dances, salsa and Kizomba. These two categories could thus organize the storage of the dance figures to be learned. Whereas Experiment 1 did not provide any obvious cues to organize storage into different categories but used the same music for all four dance figures, the items in Experiment 2 were structured by two different pieces of music clearly differing in basic rhythm, as well as in melodic elements. Hence, we expected the selective retrieval of only one of the four dance figures to impair the later recall of the nonpracticed figure of the same dance compared with the recall of figures of the other dance. The dance figures were not identical to the previously used items but similar with regard to their complexity. Each again comprised eight dance steps. All participants performed retrieval practice on one figure, either salsa or Kizomba. The two figures of the other dance served as control items.

Method Participants. Sixty-five undergraduate students (50 women, 15 men) at the University of Trier participated in exchange for course credit (mean age ⫽ 22.7, SD ⫽ 3.5). Dance experts with 10 or more years of dancing experience were not permitted to participate in Experiment 2. Because of a video recording error, data of one participant were missing, for whom a compensatory participant was tested to attain the intended sample size of 64. This should suffice to detect medium-size effects. Design. Retrieval-practice status was manipulated within participants (practiced item, nonpracticed item of the practiced dance, control items). In the final recall test, the items of one dance were tested in succession. The nonpracticed item of the practiced dance was tested before the practiced item to preclude output interference by the practiced item. The nonpracticed item, hence, was compared with the first control item tested, whereas the practiced item was compared with the second control item tested. The selected item for retrieval practice was counterbalanced between participants. In addition, the test sequence in the final recall test (beginning with the retrieval-practiced dance or with the control items) was counterbalanced between participants. Finally, the assignment of control items to the first item tested and the second item tested was also counterbalanced. Materials. The experiment was conducted in three laboratory rooms of the University of Trier. The same equipment as in Experiment 1 was used (see above). A video showing a dance instructor again presented the items. Four new dance figures were designed to serve as the four items to be learned. They were labeled Cielo, Luvia, Saida, and Neuza. Cielo and Luvia were salsa


304


Figure 2. A: The experimental procedure differed between the two groups in Experiment 1, as well as between the two dances in Experiments 2 and 3. Selective retrieval practice pertained to two of the initially learned dance figures (Experiment 1) or one figure of one dance (in Experiment 2), whereas dance figures in the control group or, respectively, of the control dance did not receive retrieval practice. In Experiment 3, selective retrieval practice was replaced by selective restudy. The final recall test followed a 5-min distractor task and assessed memory for all dance figures from the learning phase. B: Results from Experiment 1. The left section shows that the recall of dance steps of nonpracticed items in the group with selective retrieval practice was significantly impaired compared with the recall of control items. The right section shows that the recall of dance steps of practiced items was significantly better than the recall of control items. C: Results from Experiment 2. The left section shows that the recall of dance steps of nonpracticed items belonging to the same dance as the practiced items was significantly impaired compared with the recall of control items. The right section shows that the recall of dance steps of practiced items was significantly better than the recall of control items. D: Results from Experiment 3. The left section shows that the recall of dance steps of nonrestudied items belonging to the same dance as the restudied items was not impaired but was significantly better compared with the recall of control items. The right section shows that the recall of dance steps of restudied items significantly benefited from restudy compared with the recall of control items. Columns represent the mean number of recalled dance steps per figure. Error bars depict standard error of the mean. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

figures and began with the left foot. Saida and Neuza were Kizomba figures and began with the right foot. Furthermore, each dance had its own accompanying music piece; in other words, there were two pieces of music, one for salsa and one for Kizomba. Hence, the categorization of dance figures into the two dances was supported by different starting feet as well as different music pieces. All dance figures were asymmetrical. They did not overlap

with regard to any subset of steps. The dance instructor demonstrated the dance figures again using standardized terms, such as step, tap, cross, out, open, right, left, forward, and back at the first demonstrations. Procedure. The experiment consisted of four phases: learning, retrieval practice, distractor task, and final recall (see Videos S2–S5 in the online supplementary material). Participants watched



a video on the computer screen showing a dance instructor demonstrating the dance figures accompanied by oral instructions. The participants had to simultaneously join the presented movements, mimic the instructor’s moves, and memorize them in connection with the presented names. The names were stated by the instructor and displayed on the video. Participants learned the dance figures in the learning phase in the following order: Cielo, Luvia, Saida, Neuza. The dance instructor taught the dance figures in the same way as in Experiment 1. First, the dance figures were explained. The dance instructor performed the footwork slowly five times. Afterward, the dance figures were performed again five times but instead of oral explanation, the beats were counted out aloud. Then, the dance figure was performed 10 times in seconds-rhythm while the beats were also counted out aloud. Finally, the dance figure was presented with a 2-min piece of music. Depending on the dance figure, the music was either a salsa or Kizomba instrumental. The beats per minute (bpm) of both pieces of music were set to 85 bpm. Immediately after the learning phase, the retrieval-practice phase took place. Participants practiced one of the four dance figures. After one bar of the counted piece of music, the dance instructor announced the dance figure, of which he then performed the first two steps. Thereafter the screen turned black. The participants’ task was thus to complete the remaining steps of the dance figure. Overall, retrieval practice comprised eight cycles of practice. After retrieval practice, participants worked on the distractor task, a moderately difficult Sudoku puzzle. The experimenter interrupted participants after 5 min. In the final recall test, participants were asked to perform all initially learned dance figures in response to the item names displayed on a black screen accompanied by the corresponding counted piece of music. In contrast to the retrieval-practice phase, the dance instructor did not demonstrate the first two steps of the dance figures.

Results Mean retrieval-practice success was 6.13 steps (SD ⫽ 2.47). In the final recall test, the same two alternative scoring schemes as in Experiment 1 were used for the number of recalled steps in the final recall test: conservative and liberal (see above). RIF was analyzed by a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures comparing the nonpracticed item of the practiced dance with the control item tested first. Retrieval benefit was analyzed by a one-way ANOVA with repeated measure comparing the practiced item with the control item tested second. Under the conservative scoring scheme, nonpracticed items belonging to the same dance as the practiced items were significantly worse recalled than control items, F(1, 63) ⫽ 5.84, p ⫽ .019, ␩p2 ⫽ .09. In contrast, the practiced items were significantly better recalled than control items F(1, 63) ⫽ 5.68, p ⫽ .020, ␩p2 ⫽ .08. Under the liberal scoring scheme, dance steps of nonpracticed items belonging to the same dance as the practiced items (M ⫽ 3.6) were also significantly worse recalled than dance steps of control items (M ⫽ 5.1), F(1, 63) ⫽ 7.58, p ⫽ .008, ␩p2 ⫽ .11. Dance steps of practiced items (M ⫽ 6.2) were also significantly better recalled than dance steps of control items (M ⫽ 4.9), F(1, 63) ⫽ 6.08, p ⫽ .016, ␩p2 ⫽ .09.

305

In additional analyses, the experimental version was entered as a between-participants factor. The main effects indicating RIF or retrieval benefit remained significant in these analyses, Fs(1, 48) ⬎ 5.93, p ⬍ .019. There were no significant main effects of experimental version, Fs ⬍ 1. Under the conservative scoring scheme, there were no significant interactions of experimental version with RIF, F(15, 48) ⫽ 1.07, p ⫽ .408, or retrieval benefit, F(15, 48) ⫽ 1.53, p ⫽ .133. Under the liberal scoring scheme, however, significant interactions emerged with regard to RIF, F(15, 48) ⫽ 3.13, p ⫽ .001, and retrieval benefit, F(15, 48) ⫽ 2.52, p ⫽ .008. These interactions document item-specific influences that became apparent under the liberal scoring scheme and prove the necessity for the counterbalancing strategies put into practice in the design of Experiment 2.

Discussion Retrieval benefit and RIF occurred again. Participants obviously used the two dances to organize memory for the dance figures. Selective retrieval practice then entailed memoryshaping processes within sets of organized movement representations. The inhibitory account of RIF (Anderson et al., 1994; Anderson & Spellman, 1995) assumes that during retrieval practice of one item all items of this category compete for conscious recollection. To resolve this competition the Rp⫹ items are strengthened while simultaneously the Rp⫺ items are inhibited. This account has been challenged by the assumption that interference in the test phase causes RIF (Raaijmakers & Jakab, 2013). RIF may occur simply because selective retrieval practice strengthens the practiced items. The strengthened items then block access to the nonpracticed items of the same category; that is, recall of these nonpracticed items suffers from stronger interference than control items of categories that did not receive any retrieval practice. In contrast to this assumption, the inhibitory account posits retrieval specificity. Inhibition is assumed to resolve competition during retrieval practice that only arises when there is actually an attempt to retrieve items. Several studies corroborate this postulate by showing that the selective strengthening of items does not suffice to induce forgetting of the same category of items (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 2000; Bäuml, 2002; Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999; Saunders, Fernandes, & Kosnes, 2009; Staudigl, Hanslmayr, & Bäuml, 2010). We examined whether RIF of dance moves was also retrieval specific in a third experiment.

Experiment 3 We used the same material as in Experiment 2 but replaced selective retrieval practice by selective restudy. Restudy did not require retrieval but was an extension of the learning phase for one of the four dance figures. We expected restudy to also strengthen the restudied items, enhancing their recall in the test phase. However, we assumed that retrieval is a necessary component of selective practice to induce forgetting because RIF has repeatedly been shown to be retrieval specific. Therefore, we did not expect restudy to induce forgetting for the nonrestudied dance figure of the same dance.

306



Method Participants. Sixty-four undergraduate students (54 women, 10 men) at the University of Trier participated in exchange for course credit (mean age ⫽ 21.7, SD ⫽ 2.7). Dance experts with 10 or more years of dancing experience were again not permitted to participate. Design. Restudy status was manipulated within participants (restudied item, nonrestudied item of the restudied dance, control items). In the final recall test, the items of one dance were tested in succession. The nonrestudied item of the restudied dance was tested before the restudied item to preclude output interference by the restudied item. The nonrestudied item, hence, was compared with the first control item tested, whereas the restudied item was compared with the second control item tested. The selected item for restudy was counterbalanced between participants. In addition, the test sequence in the final recall test (beginning with the restudied dance or with the control items) was counterbalanced between participants. Finally, the assignment of control items to the first item tested and the second item tested was also counterbalanced. Materials and procedure. We used the same materials that we used in Experiment 2. The procedure also corresponded to Experiment 2, with the exception of the second phase. Retrieval practice was replaced by restudy. Hence, the experiment consisted of four phases: learning, restudy, distractor task, and final recall. In the restudy phase, participants restudied one of the four dance figures by means of the last part of the video used in the learning phase. The dance instructor presented the dance figure with the according piece of music. The name of the dance figure was displayed together with the name of the dance and announced by the dance instructor. The dance figure was restudied eight times.

Results Again, conservative as well as liberal scoring was used for the number of recalled steps in the final recall test. To examine the impact of selective restudy on the nonrestudied item of the same dance, a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures compared the nonrestudied item with the control item tested first. Restudy benefit of the restudied item was analyzed by a one-way ANOVA with repeated measure comparing the restudied item with the control item tested second. Under the conservative scoring scheme, nonrestudied items belonging to the same dance as the restudied items were significantly better recalled than control items, F(1, 63) ⫽ 12.66, p ⫽ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .17. Thus, the nonrestudied items were not negatively affected but actually benefited from restudy. The restudied items were also significantly better recalled than control items F(1, 63) ⫽ 24.06, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .28. Under the liberal scoring scheme, dance steps of nonrestudied items belonging to the same dance as the restudied items (M ⫽ 5.8) were marginally better recalled than dance steps of control items (M ⫽ 4.8), F(1, 63) ⫽ 3.65, p ⫽ .061, ␩p2 ⫽ .06. Dance steps of restudied items (M ⫽ 6.6) were again significantly better recalled than dance steps of control items (M ⫽ 4.5), F(1, 63) ⫽ 17.48, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .22. In additional analyses, the experimental version was entered as a between-participants factor. The main effects indicating RIF or retrieval benefit remained significant in these analyses, Fs(1, 48) ⬎ 6.88, p ⬍ .012. There were no significant main effects of experimental version, Fs(15, 48) ⬍ 1.83, p ⬎ .058. Under the

conservative scoring scheme, there was no significant interaction of experimental version with retrieval benefit, F(15, 48) ⫽ 1.45, p ⫽ .163, whereas the interaction with RIF was significant, F(15, 48) ⫽ 3.07, p ⫽ .002. Under the liberal scoring scheme, significant interactions emerged with regard to RIF, F(15, 48) ⫽ 4.74, p ⬍ .001, and retrieval benefit, F(15, 48) ⫽ 2.35, p ⫽ .013. Again, these interactions document item-specific influences that prove the necessity for the counterbalancing strategies put into practice. Comparing selective restudy and selective retrieval practice. Further analyses compared performance in Experiment 2 and Experiment 3. A 2 (Experiment) ⫻ 2 (Item Type: nonpracticed/ nonrestudied, control) ANOVA examined the impact of retrieval practice or restudy on the recall of the nonpracticed or nonrestudied items, respectively. Under the conservative scoring scheme, the main effect of item type was not significant, F ⬍ 1, nor was the main effect of experiment, F(1, 126) ⫽ 2.94, p ⫽ .089. The interaction was significant, F(1, 126) ⫽ 18.03, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .13. Under the liberal scoring scheme, the main effect of item type was not significant either, F ⬍ 1, whereas the main effect of experiment was, F(1, 126) ⫽ 7.58, p ⫽ .007, ␩p2 ⫽ .06. The interaction was also significant, F(1, 126) ⫽ 10.93, p ⫽ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .08. Taken together, irrespective of the criterion, selective restudy and selective retrieval practice had different influences on the nonrestudied/ nonpracticed items. A 2 (Experiment) ⫻ 2 (Item Type: practiced/restudied, control) ANOVA examined the benefit of retrieval practice or restudy on the recall of the practiced or restudied items, respectively. The main effect of item type was significant with conservative scoring, F(1, 126) ⫽ 25.11, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .17, as well as with liberal scoring, F(1, 126) ⫽ 21.92, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .15. The main effect of experiment was not significant with conservative scoring, F(1, 126) ⫽ 1.61, p ⫽ .207, or with liberal scoring, F ⬍ 1. The interaction was not significant either with conservative scoring, F(1, 126) ⫽ 1.98, p ⫽ .162, or with liberal scoring, F(1, 126) ⫽ 1.31, p ⫽ .255. Taken together, irrespective of the criterion, selective restudy and selective retrieval practice had different influences on the nonrestudied/nonpracticed items.

Discussion Restudy of a dance figure benefited its later recall but it did not impair recall of the nonrestudied item of the same dance. On the contrary, the nonrestudied item benefited as well. Thus, the selective strengthening of items cannot account for the forgetting of nonpracticed items observed in the previous experiments.

General Discussion Taken together, the results prove the power of retrieval in shaping memory. The complex motion patterns of dance figures are subject to dynamics either increasing or decreasing their accessibility, depending on whether the particular dance movements or related memories are retrieved. The weakening of memories in relation to retrieval practice occurs within sets of organized memory representations. In Experiment 1, the dance figures were not divided into categories. Therefore, they were stored as only one set and retrieval of some caused forgetting of others. In Experiment 2, the two dances divided the figures into two categories. Here, the retrieval dynamics triggered by selective retrieval practice im-



pacted elements of one category. The limitation of such retrieval dynamics by the borders of a set of memory representations is a typical finding, not only in research on RIF (Conway, Harries, Noyes, Racsmány, & Frankish, 2000; Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007). Categorizing principles (such as different dances) are able to organize storage and retention of complex motor behavior. Experiment 3 suggested retrieval specificity. Whereas selective restudy did enhance later recall of restudied dance figures as selective retrieval practice had enhanced recall, it did not induce forgetting. On the contrary, there was even a benefit for nonrestudied dance figures of the same dance. This finding clearly shows that no competition arose during restudy but that participants were able to strengthen the restudied dance figures without costs for the nonrestudied figures. A significant benefit for nonrestudied dance figures, however, only occurred under a conservative scoring scheme. This pattern of results might reflect that restudy strengthened the association of the movement pattern with the corresponding name of the dance figure somewhat more than retrieval practice. During retrieval practice, it was possible that participants were not able to recall the sought movement pattern, sometimes also recalling the wrong dance figure. Such mistakes were not corrected because no feedback was given. In contrast, no mix-up could arise during restudy. Hence, the selective restudy of some dance figures might have benefited nonpracticed dance figures by reducing confusion of the names of dance figures, although the number of intrusions of nonpracticed dance figures into the practiced dance was comparably low in both experiments. Only 10 participants in Experiment 2 and seven participants in Experiment 3 performed the nonpracticed movement pattern in response to a wrong name. In both experiments, 20 participants performed the nonpracticed item or its control item in response to a wrong name. Excluding these participants again resulted in significant RIF in Experiment 2, F(1, 43) ⫽ 10.45, p ⫽ .002, ␩p2 ⫽ .20, but not significantly more recalled dance steps of the nonrestudied item in Experiment 3, F(1, 43) ⫽ 3.82, p ⫽ .057. Furthermore, under the liberal scoring scheme, there was no significant benefit for the nonpracticed dance figure in Experiment 3 either. Therefore, we assume that a relatively heavier strengthening of associations between movement patterns and names during restudy accounted for the benefit under the conservative scoring scheme. It was not a memory representation of the motor sequence itself that benefited but its link to the given cue. In contrast, RIF occurred under the conservative as well as the liberal scoring schemes in Experiments 1 and 2. The observed RIF effects therefore cannot be the consequence of processes affecting the associations between movement patterns and their corresponding names. Retrieval specificity corresponds to the inhibitory account of RIF and is typically discussed as evidence against a model assuming that interference during the test caused forgetting of nonpracticed dance figures. Interference from the selective strengthening of items cannot account for the occurred RIF effects because restudy strengthened items equally as retrieval practice did. Recently, however, a new account of RIF has been outlined that can also explain retrieval specificity. The context-based model of Jonker, Seli, and MacLeod (2013) assumes that RIF is the consequence of a mental context change during retrieval practice. This mental context change is category specific and entails lower accessibility of nonpracticed items because they remain within their encoding context, whereas a novel context affects practiced items.

307

The similar task demands during the test as during retrieval practice then favor practiced items but disadvantage nonpracticed items, whereas no context change occurs for control categories. Therefore, the present results could be explained by either the inhibitory or the context-based account but rule out an interference-based model of RIF. Although the dances differed in rhythm and melodic elements, the movement patterns of the four dance figures were similar to each other without having overlap in the dance steps they consisted of. The shared feature of belonging to the same dance, however, organized memory storage and had as a consequence memoryshaping processes within categories, thereby affecting motor programs of the dance figures. Obtaining RIF under a conservative and under a liberal scoring scheme shows that the movement patterns stored in memory had been affected, instead of associations to the names of the dance figures or the dances as categories. Motor programs that represented the motion patterns in a format corresponding to parameters of movement execution were affected. Basic retrieval dynamics that have been shown to affect declarative knowledge apparently also operate within procedural memory.

Practical Implications Our findings suggest that the functionality of memory organization is that it allows retrieval dynamics of strengthening and weakening to occur. Organization starting at encoding and continuing with storage enables memory shaping later on. Thus, early organizing is the starting point of a cascade of further organizing processes that determine the accessibility of some and oblivion of other memories. These processes are fundamental mechanisms in the acquisition of complex motor behavior. In recent years, memory researchers have strongly advocated the beneficial consequences of testing on retention. The educational relevance of testing effects has been emphasized and it has been shown that testing does not only benefit retention in the laboratory (e.g., Karpicke & Blunt, 2011; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008) but also when it is applied in schools (Carpenter, Pashler, & Cepeda, 2009; McDaniel, Thomas, Agarwal, McDermott, & Roediger, 2013; Roediger, Agarwal, McDaniel, & McDermott, 2011). The current conclusion seems to be that testing is one of the most powerful tools for enhancing memory. Although by far the most studies have been concerned with verbal materials, there are a few first investigations now that also reported testing effects in motor action (Boutin et al., 2012, 2013; Kromann et al., 2009). Our present findings imply limits for the application of testing to educational contexts. The observed RIF effects can be considered a side effect of testing and prove that real-world complex movement patterns are not immune to this side effect. Indeed, with regard to verbal materials, it has been argued that usually protecting influences, such as the meaningful integration of facts in school textbooks to be learned, preclude RIF in educational contexts (Chan, 2009; Chan et al., 2006; but for conflicting results see Carroll et al., 2007). Yet, the material we used here corresponded exactly to material from real dance classes and was nevertheless affected by RIF. In fact, the used dance figures not only represented but they were real dance behavior. The dance figures were dance patterns that you learn in a dance course. In such a course, participants learn the figures in the same way as the participants in


308


the present experiments did. These newly acquired complex movement patterns were not immune to the negative side effect of testing. Obviously, there was no similarly protective process as the integration of novel pieces of factual knowledge into a coherent semantic network. Probably, motor action is not affected by integration because it involves the activation of semantic representations that do not possess corresponding counterparts in motor memory. Indeed, integration can preclude RIF (Anderson & McCulloch, 1999), but integration is precluded for RIF of items lacking semantic representations in episodic memory (Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999; Tempel & Frings, 2014b) or procedural memory (Tempel & Frings, 2014a, 2015). Another factor that could also influence RIF of motor action might be expertise, however. Expertise has been shown to protect against RIF (Carroll et al., 2007). For example, professional dancers might therefore be similarly protected from RIF of dance figures. Taking dance lessons is a popular activity. However, the easy availability of videos demonstrating and teaching dance moves via YouTube or other Internet services now often replaces or accompanies taking a course with a real dance instructor. Our experiments can also be understood as examining e-learning of complex motor action (Dania, Hatziharistos, Koutsouba, & Tyrovola, 2011; Karkou, Bakogianni, & Kavakli, 2008). Although RIF of motor action is certainly not restricted to e-learning, it ought to be noted that this side effect of testing is not counteracted when someone is learning to dance by means of a video. A dance instructor, on the other hand, can observe retrieval attempts and provide corrective feedback. So far, technology cannot replace a human teacher, even when a feedback system is utilized. For example, dance pads and motion sensors used with current game consoles provide only rough feedback on whether a specific movement is executed correctly or not. In contrast, an instructor can notice precisely how well movements are retained and thus can also compensate effects of selective practice. Indeed, there are more precise measures under development that may be able to offer the kind of sophisticated feedback in the future that an instructor can give today (e.g., Chan, Leung, Tang, & Komura, 2011; Kyan et al., 2015). However, the development of more advanced electronic systems must not be restricted to technology but also has to incorporate insights from cognitive psychology, such as the occurrence of RIF when dancers retrieval practice a subset of dance movements. Taking into account such effects will improve the efficiency of training. Dance instructors need to become aware of the consequences of retrieval practice. In the acquisition of novel dance figures, it is primarily desirable to preclude any effects that could weaken some of the learned movements in memory. In an early stage of training, retrieval practice can be particularly detrimental by weakening nonpracticed movements. Later on, the training focus may shift and forgetting of specific outdated movements can even become the goal, but in the early acquisition stage it seems wise to mainly rely on extensive restudy while preventing retrieval practice. This is especially important when students learn several movement patterns that belong to one category, such as one dance, because the present as well as previous results show that retrieval dynamics causing RIF particularly operate within organized sets of memories. To promote categorization we used different pieces of music for the dances in Experiments 2 and 3. These pieces thus served as stimuli guiding organization. After one category of dance movements has been established in long-term memory, relating a spe-

cific figure to a dance probably no longer depends on a certain piece of music but generalizes to matching tunes. RIF depends on the organized storage of memory representations. After a category has been established in memory, features that served to build up the category influence retrieval dynamics operating within categories to a lesser extent. Therefore, we assume RIF to also occur when dance figures of one dance are selectively retrieval practiced with a novel piece of music if this piece matches the dance. Implications are not limited to dancing but apply to other realms that involve practicing complex motor action. In sports and music, retrieval practice is an integral element of many training procedures. For example, musicians regularly switch to teaching a piece of music by rote after playing it from notes (Chaffin, Lisboa, Logan, & Begosh, 2010; Noice, Jeffrey, Noice, & Chaffin, 2008). Athletes preparing for a competitive performance requiring the precise execution of a defined sequence of body movement, such as in figure skating, at a high bar, or in bobsleigh runs, have to retrieve practiced motor sequences. Yet, the effects of retrieval in sports are only poorly understood so far. Investigations on different forms of practice have, for example, compared imagery and physical practice (e.g., Feltz & Landers, 1983) or scrutinized different practice schedules (e.g., Landin & Hebert, 1997), but the specific consequences of memory retrieval have been overlooked to date in this particular field. One such consequence can be the unintended occurrence of RIF. Then, it is necessary to correct for it and choose nonretrieved motor sequences as targets of further practice in order to counteract their reduced accessibility. However, it can also be desired to weaken an outdated sequence when athletes are preparing for the next competition or performers are preparing for a new show. Then, retrieval practice can be used to erase the no longer retrieved old movements. This strategy might be especially useful shortly before a concert or match because it has been reported that RIF effects can dissolve after a longer delay (Abel & Bäuml, 2012; MacLeod & Macrae, 2001), although others have found RIF to occur even after extensive delays of up to one week after retrieval practice (Storm, Bjork, & Bjork, 2012; Tandoh & Naka, 2007), which demonstrates that the decreased accessibility can actually be quite persistent. Because restudy and retrieval practice do have such contrary consequences, they can be used in a focused manner for different purposes. The present findings suggest that retrieval practice and restudy can be implemented as training tools depending on the training goals. Whereas restudy will not hurt nonrestudied movement patterns, retrieval practice can serve to weaken nonpracticed movements. If one’s goal is, for example, to enhance retention of newly acquired sequences, then repeat study cycles that do not impair anything that remained unrepeated. To single out a specific movement pattern, however, use retrieval practice to strengthen it, which weakens related patterns. Instructors, dancers, or athletes can shape their students’ or their own motor memory by relying selectively on restudy versus retrieval practice.

References Abel, M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2012). Retrieval-induced forgetting, delay, and sleep. Memory, 20, 420 – 428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211 .2012.671832 Allen, G. A., Mahler, W. A., & Estes, W. K. (1969). Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning


DANCING YOUR MOVES AWAY and Verbal Behavior, 8, 463– 470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00225371(69)80090-3 Anderson, M. C., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). Retrieval-induced forgetting: Evidence for a recall-specific mechanism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 522–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03214366 Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1063– 1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063 Anderson, M. C., & Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature, 410, 366 –369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ 35066572 Anderson, M. C., & McCulloch, K. C. (1999). Integration as a general boundary condition on retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 608 – 629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.3.608 Anderson, M. C., & Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychological Review, 102, 68 –100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102 .1.68 Bäuml, K.-H. (2002). Semantic generation can cause episodic forgetting. Psychological Science, 13, 356 –360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.09567976.2002.00464.x Bjork, R. A. (1972). Theoretical implications of directed forgetting. In A. W. Melton & E. Martin (Eds.), Coding processes in human memory (pp. 217–235). Washington, DC: Winston. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 123– 144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Boutin, A., Panzer, S., & Blandin, Y. (2013). Retrieval practice in motor learning. Human Movement Science, 32, 1201–1213. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.humov.2012.10.002 Boutin, A., Panzer, S., Salesse, R. N., & Blandin, Y. (2012). Testing promotes effector transfer. Acta Psychologica, 141, 400 – 407. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.014 Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests to enhance 8th grade students’ retention of U.S. history facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 760 –771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1507 Carroll, M., Campbell-Ratcliffe, J., Murnane, H., & Perfect, T. (2007). Retrieval-induced forgetting in educational contexts: Monitoring, expertise, text integration, and test format. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 580 – 606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326071 Catalano, J. F., & Kleiner, B. M. (1984). Distant transfer in coincident timing as a function of variability of practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 851– 856. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1984.58.3.851 Chaffin, R., Lisboa, T., Logan, T., & Begosh, K. T. (2010). Preparing for memorized cello performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38, 3–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305735608100377 Chan, J. C. K. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 153–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.004 Chan, J. C. P., Leung, H., Tang, J. K. T., & Komura, T. (2011). A virtual reality dance training system using motion capture technology. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4, 187–195. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/TLT.2010.27 Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). Retrievalinduced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.553 Ciranni, M. A., & Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Retrieval-induced forgetting in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1403–1414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0278-7393.25.6.1403

309

Coman, A., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. (2009). Forgetting the unforgettable through conversation: Socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting of September 11 memories. Psychological Science, 20, 627– 633. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02343.x Conway, M. A., Harries, K., Noyes, J., Racsmány, M., & Frankish, C. R. (2000). The disruption and dissolution of directed forgetting: Inhibitory control of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 409 – 430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2706 Dania, A., Hatziharistos, D., Koutsouba, M., & Tyrovola, V. (2011). The use of technology in movement and dance education: Recent practices and future perspectives. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3355–3361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.299 Eichenbaum, H. (2000). A cortical-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1, 41–50. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/35036213 Feltz, D. L., & Landers, D. M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25–57. Golding, J. M., & MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goode, S., & Magill, R. A. (1986). Contextual interference effects in learning three badminton serves. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 308 –314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1986 .10608091 Guadagnoli, M. A., Dornier, L. A., & Tandy, R. D. (1996). Optimal length for summary knowledge of results: The influence of task-related experience and complexity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 239 –248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607950 Jonker, T. R., Seli, P., & MacLeod, C. M. (2013). Putting retrieval-induced forgetting in context: An inhibition-free, context-based account. Psychological Review, 120, 852– 872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034246 Karkou, V., Bakogianni, S., & Kavakli, E. (2008). Traditional dance, pedagogy and technology: An overview of the WebDANCE project. Research in Dance Education, 9, 163–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14647890802087985 Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011, February). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327 Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008, February). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966 –968. http://dx .doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408 Kromann, C. B., Jensen, M. L., & Ringsted, C. (2009). The effect of testing on skills learning. Medical Education, 43, 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03245.x Kyan, M., Sun, G., Li, H., Zhong, L., Muneesawang, P., Dong, N., . . . Guan, L. (2015). An approach to ballet dance training through MS Kinect and visualization in a CAVE virtual reality environment. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 6(2). http://dx.doi .org/10.1145/2735951 Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1997). A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual interference continuum. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 357–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02701367.1997.10608017 Levy, B. J., & Anderson, M. C. (2002). Inhibitory processes and the control of memory retrieval. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 299 –305. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01923-X MacLeod, M. D., & Macrae, C. N. (2001). Gone but not forgotten: The transient nature of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 12, 148 –152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00325 McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R. C., Agarwal, P. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2013). Quizzing in middle-school science: Successful transfer performance on classroom exams. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 360 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2914


310


Neisser, U., & Winograd, E. (Eds.). (1988). Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511664014 Noice, H., Jeffrey, J., Noice, T., & Chaffin, R. (2008). Memorization by a jazz musician: A case study. Psychology of Music, 36, 63–79. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/0305735607080834 Perfect, T. J., Stark, L. J., Tree, J. J., Moulin, C. J. A., Ahmed, L., & Hutter, R. (2004). Transfer appropriate forgetting: The cue-dependent nature of retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 399 – 417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.003 Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Jakab, E. (2013). Rethinking inhibition theory: On the problematic status of the inhibition theory for forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 98 –122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml .2012.10.002 Reppa, I., Worth, E. R., Greville, W. J., & Saunders, J. (2013). The representation of response effector and response location in episodic memory for newly acquired actions: Evidence from retrieval-induced forgetting. Acta Psychologica, 143, 210 –217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.actpsy.2013.03.007 Roediger, H. L., III, Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 382–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026252 Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249 –255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Roediger, H. L., III, & Schmidt, S. R. (1980). Output interference in the recall of categorized and paired associate lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 91–105. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0278-7393.6.1.91 Sahakyan, L., & Goodmon, L. B. (2007). The influence of directional associations on directed forgetting and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1035–1049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1035 Saunders, J., Fernandes, M., & Kosnes, L. (2009). Retrieval-induced forgetting and mental imagery. Memory & Cognition, 37, 819 – 828. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.819 Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x Shaw, J. S., Bjork, R. A., & Handal, A. (1995). Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness-memory paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 249 –253. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03210965 Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179 –187. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179 Squire, L. R. (1992). Declarative and nondeclarative memory: Multiple brain systems supporting learning and memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 232–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.232

Staudigl, T., Hanslmayr, S., & Bäuml, K.-H. (2010). Theta oscillations reflect the dynamics of interference in episodic memory retrieval. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 11356 –11362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.0637-10.2010 Storm, B. C., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2012). On the durability of retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 617– 629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.674030 Storm, B. C., & Levy, B. J. (2012). A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 40, 827– 843. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0211-7 Tandoh, K., & Naka, M. (2007). Durability of retrieval-induced forgetting. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 78, 310 –315. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4992/jjpsy.78.310 Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2013). Resolving interference between body movements: Retrieval-induced forgetting of motor sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1152– 1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030336 Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2014a). Forgetting motor programmes: Retrieval dynamics in procedural memory. Memory, 22, 1116 –1125. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/09658211.2013.871293 Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2014b). Interference in episodic memory: Retrieval-induced forgetting of unknown words. Psychological Research. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426014-0604-2 Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2014c). Interference within hands: Retrievalinduced forgetting of left and right hand movements. Acta Psychologica, 148, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.003 Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2015). Categorization by movement direction: Retrieval-induced forgetting of motor sequences grouped by motion features. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 473– 486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.945098 Verde, M. F., & Perfect, T. J. (2011). Retrieval-induced forgetting in recognition is absent under time pressure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1166 –1171. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-0110143-4 Weeks, D. L., & Kordus, R. N. (1998). Relative frequency of knowledge of performance and motor skill learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 224 –230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1998 .10607689 Winstein, C. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 677– 691. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.677 Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 185–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196276 Yao, W.-X., Fischman, M. G., & Wang, Y. T. (1994). Motor skill acquisition and retention as a function of average feedback, summary feedback, and performance variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 273–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1994.9941683


Appendix Items


Experiment 1 Alacran 1. The dance instructor crosses his left foot forward-right and makes a “tap.” The weight remains on the right side. 2. He moves his left foot far to the left. The weight remains on the right foot. 3. He crosses his left foot over the right foot while he shifts his weight onto the left leg. 4. He makes a “tap” on the spot with the right foot. 5. He moves his right foot forward-right and makes a “tap.” 6. He makes another “tap” with the right foot but slightly offset from the previous “tap.” The weight is still on the left foot. 7. He makes another “tap” with the right foot, slightly offset to the right. He shifts his weight onto the right foot. 8. He makes a “tap” on the spot with his left foot. Tamambo 1. The dance instructor crosses his left foot forward over his right foot and shifts his weight onto the left foot. 2. He crosses the right foot over the left foot and shifts his weight onto the right foot. 3. He moves his left foot to the left side and stands with his legs apart. 4. He makes on the spot a “tap” with his right foot and shifts his weight onto it. 5. He crosses his left foot over the right foot. 6. He moves his right foot to the right. 7. He crosses his left foot over his right foot. 8. He crosses forward-left with his right foot. Elegua 1. The dance instructor takes a step backward with his left foot. 2. He moves his right foot back, thereby turning his upper body 90° clockwise. 3. He takes a step with his left foot on the spot, turning the foot in the same direction (90° clockwise). 4. He crosses his right foot forward over the left foot. 5. He takes a step forward with his left foot. 6. Again moving his left foot, he turns his upper body by 90° counterclockwise. 7. He crosses the left foot forward over the right foot. 8. He takes a step forward with his right foot. Pachanga 1. The dance instructor moves his left foot far to the left. No weight shift. 2. He crosses the left foot over the right foot and shifts his weight onto the left foot. 3. He moves his right foot far to the right. No weight shift. 4. He crosses his right foot over the left foot and shifts his weight onto the right foot. 5. He takes a step forward with the left foot. 6. He makes a “tap” with his right foot, just behind the left foot. 7. He takes a step backward with the right foot. 8. He moves his left foot over the right foot and makes a “tap.” Experiments 2 and 3 Cielo 1. The dance instructor crosses the left foot diagonally forward and shifts his weight onto the left leg. 2. He steps on the spot with the right foot. The weight is now on the right foot. 3. He moves his left foot to the left side. 4. The weight remains on the left foot. The dance instructor puts his right foot on the heel. 5. He takes a step with the right foot on the spot. The weight is on the right side. 6. He crosses his left foot diagonally behind the right foot. The weight is on the left foot. 7. He crosses his right foot diagonally behind the left foot. The weight is on the right foot. 8. He takes a step forward with the left foot. Luvia 1. The dance instructor takes a step with his left foot to the left. 2. He crosses his right foot over the left foot. The weight is on the right foot. 3. He moves his left foot slowly backward. The weight is on the left side. 4. Crossing the right foot over the left foot he makes a “tap.” The weight is still on the left. 5. He takes a step to the right side. 6. He moves his left foot behind the right foot. 7. He takes a step to the right side. 8. He crosses the left foot diagonally forward over the right foot.

(Appendix continues)

311


312


Appendix (continued) Saida 1. The dance instructor crosses his right foot behind the left foot. 2. He takes a step on the spot with the left foot. 3. He sets the right foot to the right side and shifts his weight onto it. 4. He moves his left foot straight back. 5. He takes a small step back with the right foot. While doing so the feet are parallel to each other and slightly turned to the left. 6. He takes a further step with the left foot to the left side and puts his right foot parallel next to it. 7. He takes a small step with left to the left side. 8. He crosses his right foot over the left foot. Neuza 1. The dance instructor crosses his right foot diagonally forward over the left foot. 2. He takes a step to the left with the left foot. 3. He slightly turns his upper body. 4. He crosses his left foot over the right foot. 5. He moves his right foot to the right. The weight is in the center. 6. He makes a “tap” with his left foot. The weight is on the right foot. 7. He makes a “tap” with his right foot. The weight is on the left foot. 8. He steps straight back with his right foot.

Received August 5, 2014 Revision received May 13, 2015 Accepted May 14, 2015 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online! Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

Washed Away; How Not to Lose Your RNA during Isolation.

It takes your breath away.

Forgetting motor programmes: retrieval dynamics in procedural memory.

How Dynein Moves Along Microtubules.

Cross-modal Action Complexity: Action- and Rule-related Memory Retrieval in Dual-response Control.

How Live Performance Moves the Human Heart.

Expectancy effects in source memory: how moving to a bad neighborhood can change your memory.

Optimizing effort: increased efficiency of motor memory with time away from practice.

How embodied is action language? Neurological evidence from motor diseases.

A new proposal on how motor memory is consolidated.

Memory and retrieval.

Power spectrum of the rectified EMG: influence of motor unit action potential shapes.

Epidermal necrolyis: a skin disease to take your breath away.

Robots show us how to teach them: feedback from robots shapes tutoring behavior during action learning.

How an Opportunistic Infection Can Mess with Your Brain and Take Your Breath Away: A Rare Case of Simultaneous Lung and Brain Abscess due to Streptococcus anginosus.

How social interactions affect emotional memory accuracy: Evidence from collaborative retrieval and social contagion paradigms.

Doing It Your Way: How Individual Movement Styles Affect Action Prediction.

How Wealth Inequality Shapes Our Future.

How to plan your doctorate.

Warming trend: how climate shapes Vibrio ecology.

How to progress your career.

How professional identity shapes youth healthcare.

Controlling your impulses: electrical stimulation of the human supplementary motor complex prevents impulsive errors.

How do your contacts (or their absence) shape your fate?