Moreover, faster SSRTs predict greater levels of performance on the Flanker and Stroop tasks (Verbruggen, Liefooghe, & Vandierendonck, 2004), as

well as negative control effects in the think-no-think paradigm (Depue, Burgess, Willcutt, Ruzic, & Banich, 2010). If retrieval-induced forgetting shares an inhibition mechanism with motor response inhibition, check details we should find that increases in forgetting are related to faster SSRTs. Thus, to test this prediction, we had participants perform both a retrieval-induced forgetting task and a stop-signal motor inhibition task. Second, we examined how the nature of the relationship between SSRT and retrieval-induced forgetting varied as a function of the type of test used to measure retrieval-induced forgetting. In Experiment 1, half of the participants were given a category-cued final

test, whereas the other half was given a category-plus-stem-cued final Ku-0059436 price test. In Experiment 2, participants were given an item-recognition final test. In consideration of the dynamics discussed above, we predicted that better response inhibition ability on the stop-signal task (i.e., faster SSRTs) would predict increases in retrieval-induced forgetting when retrieval-induced forgetting was measured using the category-plus-stem and item-recognition final tests (in which blocking is better controlled), but that the ability of SSRT to predict retrieval-induced Glycogen branching enzyme forgetting would suffer significantly when retrieval-induced forgetting was measured using the category-cued recall final test (in which blocking is not adequately controlled). A total of 132 undergraduate students at the University of Illinois at Chicago participated for partial credit in an introductory psychology course. The retrieval-practice

paradigm, which was administered first, consisted of three phases: study, retrieval practice, and final test. Participants studied 64 category-exemplar pairs, received retrieval practice for half of the exemplars from half of the categories, and were finally tested on each of the 64 category-exemplar pairs. Based on random assignment, half of the participants were given a category-cued final test, whereas the other half was given a category-plus-stem-cued final test. The study list consisted of 64 category-exemplar pairs of medium taxonomic frequency (i.e., the exemplars’ M rank order was 4.5 within their respective categories, Battig & Montague, 1969). The study list was arranged in blocks of eight items, one from each category, randomly ordered. Each pair appeared individually on the computer screen for 3 s and participants were instructed to try to remember the pairs and to study them by considering the relationship between the exemplar and its category. Four subsets of 16 items were created, with each subset consisting of four exemplars from each of four categories.