Experiment 2 sought to replicate the correlation between retrieval-induced forgetting and SSRT using item-specific test cues that effectively

reduce blocking at the time of final test. We did this by employing an item-recognition task that required participants to determine whether a given exemplar had been presented during the earlier study see more phase. The exemplars were presented alone and without their associated category, intermixed with unstudied lures from the same categories. Research has shown that this form of item-recognition task can be used to measure retrieval-induced forgetting, and that such forgetting varies significantly across populations thought to vary in inhibition ability (e.g., Aslan and Bäuml, 2010, Aslan and Bäuml, 2011 and Soriano

et al., 2009). Thus, just as in the category-plus-stem condition of Z-VAD-FMK clinical trial Experiment 1, we predicted that faster SSRT scores would predict greater retrieval-induced forgetting, a finding that would provide further evidence for the correlated costs and benefits of inhibition framework and confirm the significant relationship between response inhibition and retrieval-induced forgetting. A total of 106 undergraduate students at the University of Illinois at Chicago participated for partial credit in an introductory psychology course. The retrieval-practice paradigm consisted of three phases: study, retrieval practice, and final test. 4��8C Participants studied 64

category-exemplar pairs, received retrieval practice for half of the exemplars from half of the categories, and were then given a final test. All aspects of the materials and procedure were the same as those employed in Experiment 1 except for one important difference—at the time of the final test, participants were presented with a list of 128 exemplars and asked to indicate whether each item had been studied in the earlier study phase (i.e., to determine whether each exemplar was old or new). Half of the exemplars had been studied (and thus old), whereas the other half of the exemplars was new (and thus lures). The exemplars were shown individually, without their associated category cues, and participants were given 5 s to respond. The order of the exemplars was determined via blocked randomization such that every block of eight items consisted of one item from each category, with the old and new exemplars and practiced and non-practiced exemplars randomly distributed across the test list. Three subjects were removed because they did not understand the final test instructions, responding “old” to items regardless of whether they remembered studying them during the earlier study phase, or responding “old” only if they remembered retrieving them during retrieval practice.