Why Do We Forget? Causes and Theories of Forgetting

4 days ago

19 min read

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Memory & Forgetting · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Forgetting is a reduction in the accessibility or accuracy of previously encountered information, measured relative to a particular retrieval task, cue, and time. Sometimes information was never encoded well enough to support later remembering; sometimes a memory was formed but cannot be accessed under present conditions; sometimes stored representations change or lose detail. These outcomes can look identical in everyday life even when their mechanisms differ. Miller's review of memory failures explains why loss of recall should not automatically be treated as proof that a memory has disappeared.

The short answer to “Why do we forget?” is that remembering depends on selective encoding, stabilization, retrieval cues, competition from other information, and ongoing changes in memory representations. Interference, insufficient cues, and imperfect encoding explain many ordinary failures. Time is associated with lower retention, but the proposition that memories simply dissolve because minutes or years pass remains debated. Active control can also reduce access to particular memories. No single theory accounts for every type of forgetting.

What does forgetting mean in psychology?

Psychologists investigate forgetting by comparing performance at learning and at a later test. A person may fail to freely recall a name yet recognize it when offered several choices, retrieve it when supplied with a first letter, or remember it spontaneously the following day. Those results indicate a retrieval-dependent failure, rather than demonstrate the physical deletion of a neural trace.

A memory's apparent availability depends on what the experiment asks. Free recall requires a person to generate the target; cued recall supplies a prompt; recognition asks the person to distinguish a familiar item from alternatives. Savings in relearning can reveal residual learning even after ordinary recall has failed. The distinction between what was learned, what remains represented, and what can currently be expressed is foundational to research on forgetting (Miller, 2021).

Forgetting also varies by memory system. A phone number held briefly while dialing it, the details of a holiday, the meaning of a word, and a well-practiced motor skill are supported by partly different processes. A single account of “memory fading” obscures these differences. Studies comparing recollection and familiarity, for example, suggest that representations can vary in susceptibility to interference and elapsed time (Sadeh and colleagues, 2014).

The main causes of forgetting

1. Inadequate encoding: the information was never learned securely

An ordinary experience can feel memorable because it was seen, heard, or repeated recently. Later recall depends on how its details were attended to, distinguished, interpreted, and linked with previous knowledge. If someone places keys on a counter while planning an appointment, they may later lack a distinctive memory of the placement. What feels like forgetting can begin with shallow or divided encoding.

Encoding is graded. Remembering an idea's general meaning without recalling its exact wording can reflect the original emphasis of attention or the information preserved across retrieval attempts. The critical question is not whether a person was physically present when something occurred but which aspects were encoded in a form that can later support the required response. Subsequent memory failure alone cannot prove an earlier failure of encoding.

The popular phrase “my brain never saved it” captures one possibility, but it is a metaphor. Laboratory tests usually measure recall or recognition, not a complete inventory of what neural information was stored.

2. Retrieval failure: a usable memory cannot be accessed now

A familiar person's name can remain inaccessible until a conversation, photograph, place, or first syllable brings it to mind. Retrieval failure occurs when the available cues do not sufficiently recover a target representation. A cue that works for one learned association may be useless for another. Remembering is therefore sensitive to the relationship between the original episode and the present prompt.

This explains why a student may know the material when reading notes but struggle to produce it in an examination, or why a word returns once the person stops trying so intensely. Crucially, a successful later reminder shows that the earlier lapse did not require total erasure. Reviewing the experimental literature, Miller (2021) argued that a substantial proportion of conventional forgetting can be understood through retrieval conditions and associative interference.

Retrieval failure is a mechanistic category, not an assurance that every inaccessible memory persists intact forever. Failed retrieval and altered storage can coexist, and current behavioral evidence rarely determines the complete physical fate of a single memory.

3. Interference: other memories compete

Interference arises when related information complicates the learning or retrieval of a target. Think of two passwords, similar classmates' names, successive parking locations, or several versions of the same instruction. Their similarity makes a response less distinctive and can increase substitution, confusion, and competition.

Proactive interference describes the effect of older learning on newer learning. A former password may repeatedly intrude when someone tries to enter the recently changed one. Retroactive interference describes the effect of later learning on remembering earlier material. After learning a new telephone number, the old one can become harder to produce. These are useful descriptive distinctions; particular experiments may involve both encoding and retrieval changes.

Interference is among the best-established families of explanations for forgetting. Nevertheless, theorists disagree on whether competitive memories principally block one another at retrieval, alter what is encoded, encourage source confusion, or recruit inhibitory control. An overview of behavioral and neuroimaging research treats interference and inhibition as related but distinct concepts, with outstanding mechanistic questions (review in Brain Sciences, 2021).

4. Time-dependent change and the contested decay theory

Trace-decay theories propose that some memory representations become weaker over elapsed time unless maintained or reactivated. Forgetting is certainly correlated with longer retention intervals in many tasks. That correlation does not isolate time as the mechanism: longer intervals also permit new learning, changing contexts, reduced rehearsal, and interference.

Work on short-term and working memory has long tested whether performance losses arise from time-based decay, interference, or how distinctly items are represented. Reviews highlight the difficulty of removing all competing explanations (the short-term memory review). In one visual working-memory investigation, results originally suggestive of decay were better explained by temporal distinctiveness (Souza and Oberauer, 2015). Other findings support time-sensitive changes for particular kinds of information.

At longer intervals, the picture is also mixed. An experiment on visual detail addressed interference and changes over time (García-Rueda and colleagues, 2022), while a representation-based account proposes that recollection and familiarity can be differently affected (Sadeh and colleagues, 2014). A responsible explanation distinguishes the observation that retention decreases with time from the contested hypothesis that elapsed time alone irreversibly destroys memories.

5. Incomplete consolidation and subsequent updating

New experiences often require time-dependent neural changes before they can be expressed as stable long-term memories. Consolidation research examines cellular and systems-level processes involved in that stability. A review of the historical and neurobiological evidence describes the importance of post-learning processes without reducing them to a single moment at which a memory becomes permanently fixed (McGaugh, 2000).

When learning is weak or conditions for consolidation are unfavorable, later recall may be poorer. Retrieval can also change how a representation is expressed or linked to new information. Reconsolidation research suggests that some reactivated memories become susceptible to modification under specific experimental conditions; this is subject to boundary conditions and ongoing debates. It does not establish that every recollection rewrites every memory or that a simple technique can reliably delete an unwanted experience (reconsolidation review).

Sleep interacts with consolidation, but sleep-dependent memory is a dedicated subject. Readers looking for that mechanism can consult our Sleep and Memory: Consolidation, Learning, and Sleep Loss.

6. Active control: remembering and suppressing can affect accessibility

Forgetting sometimes follows operations the cognitive system performs rather than the mere absence of rehearsal. Retrieving a target may reduce later access to competing items. Deliberately trying not to retrieve an unwanted item can also change subsequent test performance. These findings place controlled selection and memory regulation alongside more familiar accounts of competition and cue failure.

In a landmark category-learning paradigm, Anderson, Bjork, and Bjork (1994) found that practicing the retrieval of certain category members made other members harder to remember. A subsequent meta-analysis found broad evidence for retrieval-induced forgetting while identifying results that challenge simple versions of any single inhibition explanation. The effects depend on the experimental procedure and the measure used.

A separate line of experiments asks people repeatedly to prevent retrieval when shown a learned reminder. A 2026 meta-analysis of 120 studies found a modest aggregate suppression-induced forgetting effect across testing methods, alongside substantial methodological heterogeneity. This supports a real experimental phenomenon while limiting promises that people can choose to erase any autobiographical memory on command.

Researchers also discuss active forgetting in neural circuits. Reviews of molecular and cellular evidence, particularly from animal models, identify processes that can regulate memory persistence (Davis and Zhong, 2017). The relation between such circuit-level mechanisms and a particular human episode of ordinary forgetfulness remains a subject of investigation.

Theories of forgetting: what each explains and what remains disputed

Trace decay

The core proposition is that representations become less effective with the passage of time. It offers a straightforward account of declining performance after delays, but many traditional demonstrations do not separate elapsed time from interference or changes in retrieval cues. Its standing depends on the type of memory, task demands, and competing model. The statement “all memories fade at a fixed rate” is an unsupported generalization.

Interference theory

The core proposition is that learning and retrieving overlapping information can impair target performance. It predicts difficulties with similar items and explains why distinctiveness, ordering, and previous experience matter. Different interference accounts emphasize associative competition, source confusion, altered encoding, or control-based inhibition. Interference is well documented; its precise causal implementation is not settled across all tasks.

Cue-dependent or retrieval-failure accounts

These accounts explain why a change in reminders or context can prevent an existing memory from being expressed. They are supported by recovery with prompts, recognition advantages in some settings, and contextual effects. A meta-analysis of environmental context-dependent memory documented context effects while examining the conditions that influence their size. A familiar room can sometimes help, but matching the original room is neither necessary nor sufficient for reliable recall.

Consolidation-based accounts

These focus on processes that help stabilize new learning and on factors that disrupt retention. Their scope includes memory formation, not merely retrieval at the final test. Consolidation is supported by several lines of evidence, but no single laboratory intervention or neural marker fully predicts which everyday details will endure.

Inhibition and adaptive forgetting

These accounts investigate whether control processes suppress unwanted or competing retrieval and thereby improve selection. The 2021 review by Anderson and Hulbert synthesizes cognitive and prefrontal-control evidence; the 2026 meta-analysis provides a recent quantitative assessment of suppression-induced forgetting. Competing explanations, heterogeneous study effects, and translation into real-life memories must remain explicit.

These frameworks are complementary at the level of many everyday observations. A person can encode a detail weakly, encounter similar subsequent information, lose useful environmental cues, and try to suppress an intrusive competing answer. The best explanation depends on evidence about the particular task rather than on a universal ranking of theories.

What the forgetting curve actually shows

Hermann Ebbinghaus introduced experimental methods for studying retention across delays, including savings during relearning. The famous forgetting curve summarizes changes in performance as time since learning increases; it should not be interpreted as a biological law assigning identical percentages of loss to every student, subject, or memory.

In a modern replication, Murre and Dros (2015) used Ebbinghaus-style lists and relearning intervals from 20 minutes to 31 days, finding a broadly similar retention pattern. The replication involved one learner and a specialized verbal task. It supports the importance of retention-interval effects without validating a universal online graphic promising that everyone forgets an exact percentage after one hour or one week.

Curves vary with previous knowledge, how well the material was learned, the demands of the test, spacing and retrieval practice, and the kinds of materials compared. They describe retention under specified conditions; by themselves, they cannot adjudicate among decay, interference, cue failure, and other causes. A separate EN-24 article is planned to analyze the curve's history and replications in detail.

Why do you forget something you knew yesterday?

Yesterday's success establishes that some retrieval or recognition was possible then. Today's failure may follow a shift in cues, competition among similar items, additional intervening learning, a different test, fatigue, or imperfect original encoding. A strong feeling of knowing something is an experience about memory, rather than a guarantee that the correct answer can presently be retrieved.

Consider a colleague's name. Seeing a face yesterday may have supplied a powerful cue; being asked for the name without that face today is a different retrieval task. Similarly, correctly selecting an answer on a multiple-choice quiz differs from freely reconstructing it without alternatives. The observation “I remembered it once” is compatible with several theories and does not locate the failure in one neural structure.

A practical response is to recreate useful learning cues, attempt genuine recall, then check and correct the answer. Repeated errors should be corrected rather than rehearsed. If the lapse concerns critical practical information, use reliable records rather than trusting memory alone.

Why do similar memories get mixed up?

Memories are not stored like separate labeled files with perfectly isolated access paths. Related people, places, words, and episodes may share features or retrieval cues. That overlap is useful for recognizing patterns and applying prior knowledge, but it can also produce source confusion or competition. Repeatedly parking in different rows of the same garage creates many experiences with nearly identical cues.

When a person supplies the wrong version of an otherwise familiar fact, the problem may involve retrieving a competing representation rather than losing the intended one. When someone remembers a broad theme but attaches a detail from another episode, reconstruction and source attribution also matter. Interference and distortion can coincide, but false memory formation and eyewitness reliability have their own separate scientific questions.

Is forgetting always a weakness?

Selective remembering supports adaptable behavior. Holding on to every outdated password, obsolete instruction, or recently superseded plan with equal priority could make choosing a relevant response harder. A useful system has to distinguish what matters now, maintain appropriate access to important knowledge, and reduce the influence of irrelevant competitors.

Some studies link active control with reduced access to interfering memories, and neuroscience reviews consider regulated forgetting as a component of adaptation (Anderson and Hulbert, 2021; Davis and Zhong, 2017). That functional perspective does not establish that every forgotten name or appointment was intentionally discarded for a purpose. Individual lapses can be inconvenient, and adaptive explanations are most informative when tied to experimentally testable mechanisms.

Forgetting also permits information to be updated as environments change. Yet the benefits of selecting current information cannot be used to excuse preventable errors in safety-critical contexts. External reminders, checklists, and deliberately engineered routines are often appropriate complements to biological memory.

What happens in the brain when we forget?

Human episodic remembering relies on interactions among hippocampal, cortical, and control networks rather than a single memory “drawer.” Hippocampal processes help support the relational and contextual aspects of many episodes, and prefrontal systems participate in selecting, monitoring, and controlling retrieval. Experimental comparisons of recollection and familiarity offer evidence that different representations may be vulnerable to different sources of loss (Sadeh and colleagues, 2014).

At the cellular level, changes in synaptic connections and patterns of neural activity support memory formation and persistence. Animal research also reveals active regulatory pathways capable of promoting forgetting or altering access. The Neuron perspective by Davis and Zhong surveys such mechanisms. Translating a change in a molecular pathway directly into “the reason I forgot my keys today” would exceed the evidence.

A laboratory observation that a remembered fact becomes inaccessible can arise through multiple pathways. Neural imaging patterns and behavioral tests constrain hypotheses, but they seldom authorize a claim that a specific personal memory has physically vanished forever. Brain and cognitive explanations are most useful when kept at their appropriate levels of measurement.

Why do we forget childhood experiences?

Difficulty recalling the earliest years of life is widely studied as childhood amnesia. Its explanation involves the development of autobiographical memory, language, self-related organization, neural systems, and changing access to early experiences. It is not a straightforward demonstration that early life was never learned, nor evidence that inaccessible childhood experiences must have been repressed.

A developmental review by Hayne and Jack describes multiple contributing mechanisms, and Bauer's complementary-processes account emphasizes changes in both the quality and persistence of early autobiographical representations. Longitudinal work also shows that children's reports of their earliest memories can change over time (Peterson and colleagues, 2005). The ages and content of people's earliest reported memories vary with methodology and personal history.

Ordinary forgetting of early-life events should be distinguished from clinical amnesia, trauma-specific memory symptoms, and questions about the accuracy of reconstructed autobiographical narratives. Those subjects require independent evidence and clinical context.

Can stress, poor sleep, mood, or multitasking make forgetting worse?

In daily life, remembering can be disrupted at several stages. Poor sleep, emotional distress, and distraction may affect what is encoded or retrieved, while medication effects and medical conditions sometimes contribute to noticeable changes. These influences should be assessed individually rather than assigned a universal forgetting percentage.

The U.S. National Institute on Aging identifies sleep problems, depression and anxiety, medication side effects, thyroid disease, and nutrient deficiencies among possible contributors to memory complaints. This is a clinical reminder that a complaint about remembering is a symptom with several possible explanations, rather than a diagnosis by itself.

Media multitasking can complicate attention during learning; our evidence review of media multitasking and memory covers that separate digital-attention question. The clinical relationship between low mood, attention, and subjective memory is developed in Depression and Brain Fog. These connections help explain context without making ordinary forgetting a symptom of any single disorder.

Forgetting and aging: what changes, and what requires evaluation?

As adults age, they may take longer to learn new information, need more time or better cues to retrieve names, and occasionally misplace belongings. The severity, progression, and effect on functioning matter more than a single isolated lapse. Normal age-related variation, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia are different clinical categories.

The National Institute on Aging's guidance distinguishes mild forgetfulness from memory problems that interfere with daily independence. Repeatedly asking the same questions, getting lost in familiar places, increasing confusion, difficulty following ordinary instructions, or progressive difficulty with personal care are reasons to seek an evaluation. A sudden change in memory or thinking, especially with other neurological symptoms, warrants urgent medical attention.

A professional assessment may consider the course of symptoms, medications, sleep, mood, medical conditions, functional changes, and appropriate cognitive tests. Online memory quizzes do not establish a diagnosis. Questions specifically involving major gaps for autobiographical events or dissociative phenomena are discussed separately in Dissociative Amnesia vs Ordinary Forgetting.

How to remember more effectively: what evidence supports

Make the original encoding meaningful and distinctive

Define what you want to remember, connect it to relevant prior knowledge, explain it in your own words, and attend to discriminating details. When names, dates, or instructions are similar, deliberately notice the features that distinguish them. Stronger initial learning is more useful than repeatedly exposing yourself to information without checking what you can retrieve.

Retrieve information instead of relying on recognition

After reading a passage, close it and explain the important claims from memory. Then check the source and correct omissions. Controlled studies show that retrieval practice can support later retention, including in comparisons with repeated study (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006). The optimal test difficulty and timing depend on the material, what has already been learned, and how errors are corrected.

Retrieval practice strengthens selected targets, but the existence of retrieval-induced forgetting means that repeatedly practicing only a narrow subset can have consequences for competing information. Vary prompts and test the full set of material relevant to your goal.

Distribute review across time

Spacing means revisiting material in separated sessions rather than concentrating every attempt into one period. A quantitative synthesis covering hundreds of comparisons found reliable effects of distributed practice and demonstrated that the best spacing depends partly on the intended retention interval (Cepeda and colleagues, 2006). There is no scientifically universal schedule appropriate to every learner and subject.

Combine spaced review with active recall and timely feedback. For difficult tasks, add contextual cues and practical aids such as written instructions or calendar reminders. These strategies improve access and task completion in different ways; using a reminder is not evidence that a brain's intrinsic storage capacity has increased.

Be cautious about brain-training promises

Becoming quicker or more accurate at a particular memory game may reflect improved performance on that very task. Researchers separate trained-task gains, near transfer to similar tests, far transfer to distinct abilities, and measurable benefits in everyday functioning. A meta-analysis of working-memory training found limited convincing evidence for broad far transfer with appropriate active controls. Product claims about permanent, generalized enhancement require independent evidence for the precise outcomes advertised.

Reduce avoidable retrieval demands

Create consistent locations for important objects, use dependable reminders, and write down complex instructions. Reserve attention for new information when accuracy matters. People can reduce the consequences of ordinary forgetting without needing a theory that every missed detail could be permanently protected through effort alone.

Misconceptions about forgetting

“If I forgot it, it is gone from my brain.”

A failed test establishes an inability to provide the target under the conditions of that test. It does not establish irreversible removal. Other clues or later tests may recover information, while some details may indeed have changed or become unrecoverable. The review by Miller develops precisely this distinction.

“All memories disappear because of time decay.”

Retention intervals affect test performance, but studies struggle to isolate pure passage of time from interference, changes in context, and representational differences. Contemporary models include several potential causes; short-term decay remains a debated mechanism (review of short-term memory).

“The forgetting curve predicts exactly how much everyone forgets.”

The curve comes from specified tasks, materials, participants, and retention measures. A modern replication adds useful evidence, not a universal percentage chart (Murre and Dros, 2015).

“A vivid or emotionally important event is always remembered accurately.”

Vividness, confidence, availability, and accuracy are different dimensions. Later descriptions may preserve important themes while altering contextual details. False memories, source-monitoring errors, and testimony accuracy require their own experimental evaluation. The present article concerns the general causes of forgetting, not a method of determining whether one particular remembered event occurred.

“A memory game prevents everyday forgetting and dementia.”

Evidence of task-specific improvement does not guarantee broad cognitive transfer or disease prevention. Commercial claims should be measured against controlled studies with objective functional outcomes, not against before-and-after scores on the same game (Melby-Lervåg and colleagues, 2016; National Institute on Aging).

Frequently asked questions

Why do we forget information so quickly after learning it?

Immediate familiarity can be mistaken for durable mastery. Newly learned information may have been encoded incompletely, lacks distinctive retrieval cues, or competes with similar material. Memory testing after a meaningful delay is more informative than how easy the information feels during the initial exposure. Different tasks yield different retention curves.

Is it possible to completely erase a memory?

Conventional forgetting experiments primarily measure what people can retrieve under particular conditions. They cannot demonstrate comprehensive deletion of every representation of a personal event. Neuroscience investigates changes in persistence, and suppression studies show modest average effects on later recall. Those findings do not provide a dependable personal-memory erasure procedure.

What is the difference between forgetting and memory loss?

“Forgetting” commonly refers to reduced recall or access after previous learning. “Memory loss” is a broader everyday and clinical expression that can include sustained, progressive, or unusually extensive difficulties. Neither word alone identifies a cause. Clinical interpretation requires information about onset, associated symptoms, function, and testing.

Why can I recognize something but fail to recall it?

Recognition supplies the target or candidate options, whereas free recall requires generating a response. Different tasks provide different cues and can draw on partly different contributions of familiarity and recollection. Recognition can therefore succeed when unaided recall fails, although recognition itself is not infallible.

Is forgetting caused by interference or by decay?

Both are research hypotheses with evidence that depends on the task and representation. Interference from similar information is robust. Time-dependent changes are investigated seriously, but elapsed time is difficult to isolate experimentally. Theories differ in their mechanistic commitments, and no universal either-or answer covers all forms of memory.

Why do I forget names more often than faces?

Names are often arbitrary labels with fewer distinctive associations than a recognizable face. Remembering the person visually and retrieving the associated name pose different demands; interference between similar names can add difficulty. Persistent or worsening naming problems that affect daily functioning deserve individual assessment.

Why do memories return unexpectedly years later?

A person may encounter a cue that overlaps with an earlier event, including a smell, conversation, image, or location. Recovery after a long interval demonstrates that a previous period without recall does not necessarily mean irreversible loss. It does not guarantee that every accompanying detail is accurate.

Can you train yourself not to remember something?

Controlled experiments have found small-to-moderate aggregate suppression-induced forgetting effects, including the 2026 review. Effects vary and are not a safe self-treatment protocol for traumatic or intrusive experiences. Anyone seeking help for distressing recollections should consider qualified clinical support rather than attempting to force memory deletion.

Does remembering one thing make you forget another?

Sometimes. Retrieval-induced forgetting experiments find that practicing some related items can impair later access to other items. The average effect and explanations vary with the retrieval task and testing method (Murayama and colleagues, 2014). This does not mean every act of remembering automatically destroys competing memories.

When should forgetfulness worry me?

Occasional forgotten names or misplaced keys are common. Increasing problems that interfere with work, daily independence, familiar routes, finances, safety, or communication warrant discussion with a clinician. Sudden memory change with neurological symptoms requires prompt evaluation. See the National Institute on Aging's clinical guidance.

What is the most effective way to reduce forgetting when studying?

First learn the material accurately, then practice retrieving it without looking, check mistakes, and space subsequent sessions. Match review intervals to the duration you want to remember. Evidence supporting retrieval and spacing is stronger than blanket claims that a particular app, supplement, or game produces universal memory enhancement (Roediger and Karpicke; Cepeda and colleagues).

References

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(5), 1063–1087. PubMed.

Anderson, M. C., & Hulbert, J. C. (2021). Active forgetting: Adaptation of memory by prefrontal control. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 1–36. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-072720-094140.

Bauer, P. J. (2015). A complementary processes account of the development of childhood amnesia and a personal past. Psychological Review, 122(2), 204–231. DOI: 10.1037/a0038939.

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354.

Clark, C. A., et al. (2026). Forgetting as a consequence of retrieval suppression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 155(5), 1318–1346. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001922.

Davis, R. L., & Zhong, Y. (2017). The biology of forgetting—A perspective. Neuron, 95(3), 490–503. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.039.

García-Rueda, L., Poch, C., & Campo, P. (2022). Forgetting details in visual long-term memory: Decay or interference? Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 887321. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.887321.

Hayne, H., & Jack, F. (2011). Childhood amnesia. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(2), 136–145. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.107.

McGaugh, J. L. (2000). Memory—A century of consolidation. Science, 287(5451), 248–251. DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5451.248.

Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of far transfer: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616635612.

Miller, R. R. (2021). Failures of memory and the fate of forgotten memories. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 181, 107426. DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2021.107426.

Murayama, K., Miyatsu, T., Buchli, D., & Storm, B. C. (2014). Forgetting as a consequence of retrieval: A meta-analytic review of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1383–1409. DOI: 10.1037/a0037505.

Murre, J. M. J., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0120644. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120644.

National Institute on Aging. (n.d.). Memory problems, forgetfulness, and aging: What's normal and what's not? Official NIH guidance.

Peterson, C., Grant, V. V., & Boland, L. D. (2005). Childhood amnesia in children and adolescents: Their earliest memories. Memory, 13(6), 622–637. DOI: 10.1080/09658210444000278.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.

Sadeh, T., Ozubko, J. D., Winocur, G., & Moscovitch, M. (2014). How we forget may depend on how we remember. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.008.

Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 203–220. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196157.

Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2015). Time-based forgetting in visual working memory reflects temporal distinctiveness, not decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 156–162. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0652-z.

Psychological Encyclopedia