Intent to Remember and Von Restorff (Isolation)
Effects Reveal Attentional Processes
Richard A. Block and Krista D. Manley
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana
Introduction

…
A classic finding (Von Restorff, 1933) is that
subjects remember items that are isolated,
distinctive, or salient compared to other items.
It is usually measured by free recall of a series
of words. The finding of enhanced memory of
isolated items is usually attributed to distinctive
encoding processes, which may result from
enhanced attention to the distinctive items.
However, it is unclear exactly what processes
produce this effect. One way to decide among
the proposed explanations is to assess
remembering for an item that immediately
preceded or followed a distinct, or isolated, item
or items. Memory performance for preceding or
following items is compared to performance for
other items in the series (i.e., those that were
not distinct and did not immediately precede or
follow target item or items).
Block (2009) found that intent to remember a
specific type of picture enhances the subsequent
recognition of it. He attributed this to a rapid
allocation of attentional resources and an
attentional-gate model. Memory was enhanced
at even short (0.5 s) presentation durations.
Block (in prep.) also found that intent to
remember in a similar paradigm significantly
enhanced recognition of target pictorial stimuli
but had no effect on surrounding items.
The present study focused on the possible link
between the attentional processes involving both
intent to remember and isolation effects.
Method
Design
We used a 3  4 mixed-model design, with 3
between-subjects conditions — Intentional (INT)Framed, Incidental (INC)-Framed, Incidental
(INC)-Unframed) — and 4 within-subjects
stimulus types — target, preceding, following,
neither preceding nor following, and unpresented
(new) faces.
Subjects
A total of 195 male and female college students
participated.
p1
Target
Preceding
…


Car
t1

Following
…

Filler
f2
Results
The effect of intent-to-remember (INTFramed) on recognition memory was
significantly greater (p < .001) than the
effect on either of the incidental
conditions (INC-Framed and INCUnframed). This conceptually replicates
Block’s (2009) findings.
Neither
Procedure
A total of 53 faces and 18 cars were presented
in a 71-item series. Subjects in all three
conditions were told to count the number of
cars (and most counted 18, as presented).
This easy cover task was used by Block (2009)
to ensure that subjects in the incidental
conditions would not suspect that this was a
memory experiment.
Stimuli
Seven Target (T) faces were randomly assigned
to serial positions subject to the constraint that
at least one Preceding (P) and one Following (F)
face presentation was available. Target faces
were framed (see above), except in the
Incidental-Unframed condition. Seven
neither (N) faces were also used; they did not
precede or follow a Target or a Car.
Untested (filler) faces were assigned to a total of
16 serial positions, sometimes to ensure that
none of the P, F, or N faces would immediately
precede of follow a car. Untested (filler) faces
were also assigned to the five initial and the five
final (primacy and recency buffer) serial
positions that cars did not occupy.
Seven P and seven F faces were assigned to
surround the T faces. Another seven N faces
were randomly assigned around filler faces.
This effect is also apparent in the three
main conditions and each of the four item
types.
Discussion
Intent to remember increased recognition
rates for all stimulus types. Isolation did
not increase recognition rates, so the
isolation effect cannot explain the benefit
of recognizing targets found from intent
to remember. The Intent-Framed had the
highest recognition rates compared to the
other conditions, and no stimulus type
was significantly higher than the others.
The Incidental-Framed condition had
higher recognition for Neither stimuli, and
the Incidental-Unframed condition had
significantly higher recognition for Neither
and Targets.
This supports the notion that intent to
remember may be critical to producing an
isolation effect (Wallace, 1965). It could
also mean that (a) the unexpected frames
were an attentional distraction, (b) that
we used more than the usual number of
isolated items than in most Von Restorff
studies (seven vs. one or just a few), or
(c) both. Our main finding is that intent to
remember may be needed for isolation,
but isolation is not needed for intent-toremember effects. Our findings might
help researchers understand the role of
intent to remember and the isolation
effect as influences on remembering.
References
Block, R. A. (2009). Intent to remember briefly
presented human faces and other pictorial
stimuli enhances recognition memory. Memory &
Cognition, 37, 667-678.
Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of
distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 105-112.
Recognition Test
Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive
theory of memory? Memory &: Cognition, 19,
523-542.
The subsequent recognition test had 35 faces (7
preceding faces, 7 target faces, 7 following faces,
7 neither preceding nor following any targets or
cars, and 7 new faces).
Wallace, W. P. (1965). Review of the historical,
empirical, and theoretical status of the von
Restorff phenomenon, Psychological Bulletin, 63,
410-424.