Take, for example, two final tests that have been used extensively in the literature: category-cued recall and category-plus-stem-cued recall. In category-cued recall, participants receive

category cues and are asked to recall all studied items associated with those cues, including both the practiced and non-practiced items. In category-plus-stem-cued recall, however, participants receive item-specific cues (e.g., tree: b) and are asked to recall the particular items associated with Selleck PLX3397 those cues. This latter test provides item-specific information that, when combined with the category cue, can uniquely identify the target item on the study list. Because participants search memory with this conjoint cue, the

interference suffered from non-target exemplars that do not match those cues should be reduced. Indeed, this is part of the reason why performance often improves when multiple cues are provided (e.g., Dosher and Rosedale, 1997, Massaro et al., 1991, Rubin LBH589 manufacturer and Wallace, 1989, Tulving et al., 1964 and Weldon and Massaro, 1996). Adding item-specific stem cues, therefore, should reduce (though not eliminate) blocking from Rp+ items during the retrieval of Rp− items at final test. If the blocking component is reduced on a category-plus-stem-cued recall test (relative to a category-cued test), then a greater proportion of the measured retrieval-induced forgetting effect should be due to the Aldol condensation persisting aftereffects of inhibition. The costs and benefits analysis outlined above makes specific predictions about how individual differences in inhibitory control should relate to retrieval-induced forgetting. Specifically, whether superior inhibitory control is associated with higher levels of retrieval-induced forgetting should depend on how effectively the final test format used to measure forgetting eliminates blocking. Consider a category-plus-stem-cued

recall test in which retrieval success for Rp− items is less influenced by blocking. On such a test, the inhibition component of retrieval-induced forgetting should be preserved. If so, this test should reveal a clear positive relationship between inhibitory control ability and the amount of retrieval-induced forgetting that is observed. In contrast, when a category-cued recall test is employed, forgetting of Rp− items should be driven in part by inhibition, and in part by blocking at test. Like the category-plus-stem-cued recall test, the component of retrieval-induced forgetting due to inhibition should be positively related to inhibitory control ability. The additional blocking component of retrieval-induced forgetting on such tests, however, should be negatively related to inhibition ability because blocking reflects a failure to deploy inhibition to overcome interference at test.