Self-paced part-list cuing.

Ironically, the presentation of a subset of studied material as retrieval cues at test often impairs recall of the remaining (target) material-an effect known as part-list cuing impairment. Part-list cues are typically provided at the beginning of the recall period, a time when nearly all individuals would be able to recall at least some studied items on their own. Across two experiments, we examined the effects of part-list cuing when student participants could decide on their own when the cues were presented during the recall period. Results showed that participants activated the cues relatively late in the recall period, when recall was already close to asymptote. Critically, such delayed cuing no longer impaired recall performance. The detrimental effect of part-list cuing, as it has been demonstrated numerous times in the memory literature, thus seems to depend on presentating the cue items (too) early in the recall period.

Part-list cuing with prose material: When cuing is detrimental and when it is not.

Numerous studies have shown that the presentation of some studied items as retrieval cues at test can impair recall of the remaining items. This effect, often referred to as part-list cuing (PLC) impairment, has mostly been demonstrated with simple word lists and short retention intervals between study and test. Across 4 experiments, this study examined the effects of PLC with educationally relevant prose passages for retention intervals of up to one week. Results showed that the effects of PLC with prose material depend critically on retention interval and test format. In the absence of any further retrieval cues, Experiments 1-3 found detrimental effects of PLC after short delay but neutral effects of PLC after delays of 2 days or 1 week. In the presence of gapped sentences ("fill-in-the-blank") serving as (additional) retrieval cues at test, Experiment 4 found a neutral effect of PLC after short delay but a beneficial effect after a delay of 2 days. With prose material, detrimental effects of PLC may thus be restricted to short retention interval and neutral or even beneficial effects may arise after prolonged retention interval. The findings suggest that both detrimental mechanisms - like blocking and inhibition - and beneficial mechanisms - like context reactivation - contribute to the effects of PLC with prose material.

Selective retrieval in categorized lists: Detrimental, neutral, and beneficial effects on nonretrieved items.

Numerous studies of retrieval-induced forgetting have shown that the selective retrieval of some studied items can impair recall of other nonretrieved items. Varying the lag between study and selective retrieval and using lists of unrelated items as study material, recent work replicated this detrimental effect when the lag between study and selective retrieval was short but reported a beneficial effect of selective retrieval when the lag was long. Here we report the results of 4 experiments in which we examined the influence of lag (3 min vs. 24 hr) for the effects of selective retrieval in categorized lists. When the selectively retrieved and the nonretrieved items shared the same categories (Experiments 1 and 2), we found detrimental effects of selective retrieval regardless of lag between study and selective retrieval. In contrast, when the selectively retrieved and the nonretrieved items belonged to different categories (Experiments 3 and 4), the effects of selective retrieval varied with lag, showing a neutral effect after the short lag and a beneficial effect after the longer lag. A 2-factor explanation is provided that assumes critical roles in selective retrieval of (a) inhibition and blocking and (b) context retrieval. This account captures the present findings as well as the recent results on the effects of selective retrieval with lists of unrelated items. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Hypermnesia and the Role of Delay between Study and Test.

Hypermnesia is increased recall across repeated tests in the absence of any further study opportunities. Although over the years many factors have been identified that influence hypermnesia, to date not much is known about the role of delay between study and test for the effect. This study addressed the issue in four experiments. Employing both words and pictures as study material, we compared hypermnesia after shorter delay (3 min or 11.5 min) and longer delay (24 h or 1 week) between study and test. Recall occurred over three successive tests, using both free recall (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) and forced recall testing (Experiment 3). In forced recall tests, subjects are instructed to recall as many items as possible, but if unable to remember all studied items, to fill in the remaining spaces with their best guesses. With free recall testing, hypermnesia increased with delay and the effect was driven mainly by reduced item losses between tests. These results suggest a link between hypermnesia and the testing effect, which shows that demanding retrieval practice, as it happens after longer delay, can improve recall by reducing the forgetting of the practiced items. In contrast, with forced recall testing, hypermnesia decreased with delay and was even absent after longer delay. The findings indicate that recall format can influence hypermnesia and different mechanisms may mediate the effects of repeated testing in the two recall conditions.

Selective directed forgetting in children.

When, after study of an item list, adults are cued to forget some of the list items and encode new information instead, such cuing often induces selective forgetting of the to-be-forgotten material without impairing recall of the other items. This study examined developmental trends in such selective directed forgetting by having second graders, sixth graders, and young adults study three successive lists of items and, after study of List 2, cuing them either to remember both List 1 and List 2 or to forget List 2 but remember List 1. Consistent with prior work, second graders exhibited no forgetting at all in response to the forget cue, whereas young adults selectively forgot List 2. Sixth graders showed still another pattern with forgetting of both List 1 and List 2, suggesting that the ability to selectively forget is still absent at this age level. Directed forgetting has often been attributed to the action of inhibitory control processes. On the basis of this view, the current finding that children during middle childhood do not yet show selective forgetting indicates that the control processes underlying selective directed forgetting mature into adolescence and early adulthood.